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

No time for Evolution?

page: 17
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Where did I say I deny evolution?




posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
Evolution is real, get over it.


Same questions. Where or how did Evolution originate? You guys said Evolution MUST HAVE LIFE, so if there wasn't any life, would evolution still exists?


Google 'abiogenesis.'



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
If there wasn't any life, would evolution exists?


I kind of already said that in a different post.


originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Before there was life, there was nothing that could evolve. Since evolution is about the study of how life changes over time, it doesn't focus on how life came to be in the first place.


So no. Without life, biological evolution wouldn't exist.


The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

evolution.berkeley.edu...



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Tell me, where did Evolution originate and how or did it just magically pop into existence?


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I apologize, from your repeated commentary about evolution being invisible or magical I could only garner you are denying it happens.

I'm confused by why it should matter when evolution originated? What is the answer you are seeking to this question and how will it impact your worldview?

The answer you're most likely going to get is "it began when life began". But of course that answer wades in very muddy water since we don't know at what point (or even how to classify when) the crossover from non-life to life actually happened, technically speaking.

Just trying to get a sense of what your issue with evolution is.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Exactly, without life no evolution so the Origin of Life is paramount and without it evolution is incomplete.

Your Wiki link is about:

History of evolutionary thought

I didn't ask you, who first started talking about Evolution. I asked:

Tell me, where did Evolution originate and how or did it just magically pop into existence?

Evolution is a physical process. Where did it originate? If Evolution can't exist without life, how can you separate it from the Origin of Life?

Is Evolution Magic? Where and how did it originate? We have theories about Gravity and how it originated? We can look to Maxwell's equations when it comes to Electromagnetism. Does Evolution have some ghostly existence?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

My issue isn't with Evolution but with Blind Darwinists who try to separate Evolution from the Origin of Life. Evolution is incomplete without the Origin of Life.

These guys have said EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE and EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE then it stands to reason that evolution is incomplete without the Origins of Life that these guys say Evolution MUST HAVE in order to exist.


edit on 20-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I kind of already said that in a different post.




originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Before there was life, there was nothing that could evolve. Since evolution is about the study of how life changes over time, it doesn't focus on how life came to be in the first place.

So no. Without life, biological evolution wouldn't exist.

The interesting thing is there are many who apply the "power of natural selection" to the pre-biotic processes that eventually gave way to complex life. I'm mainly referring to self-assembly as the bio-chemical process that creates life. Another member here, who I believe works in the scientific field, insists that SA is very much intertwined with natural selection, and that it in fact exists because of it. I disagreed with this, but that is besides the point. Natural selection we all know is hall mark of biological evolution. So if natural selection plays a role in determining the processes that eventually lead to life, then why can't it be said that life evolved into existence? Why is the line drawn in the sand?
edit on 20-9-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I don't disagree that there is a lot that we don't know and that there are gaps in knowledge. It's apparent that evolution, as presently defined, occurs and that certain aspects of it can be observed and measured (mostly in controlled environments).

I guess it depends on whether or not by evolution you mean the change in allele frequencies in a population, since that is the general definition under the MES.

However natural selection, which is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory, seems to be applied to just about anything and everything these days.
edit on 20-9-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Why is life on this planet so diverse?

How did life on this planet start?

Two different questions. Two different answers. Two separate things.

Maybe answering how life started could give us more insight into evolution? I don't know. But the origins of life are not going to change the theory of biological evolution much, if at all. Because it's a process that's pretty well understood and supported by mountains of evidence.

Seems to me you are approaching this from the perspective there is/was an intelligent mind behind all of this, and thus, only so many potential forms of life can exist. Despite it seeming random to us. I refer to your poker analogy. Sorry if I have this wrong, it's early as hell and I don't want to reread the thread to nail it down.

But whether or not there was some intelligent force behind how life came to be, evolution still happens (as you have not denied, to my knowledge). How life started is definitely interesting to think about. But non life didn't evolve into life (in the biological theory of evolution sense). Therefore, it is separate area of study.

As far as I understand these things at least. And I am far from an expert.
edit on 9-20-2016 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: PhotonEffect

My issue isn't with Evolution but with Blind Darwinists who try to separate Evolution from the Origin of Life.


So basically every single biologist on the planet.

Ok, mate. They're wrong, you're right.

Suuuure.
edit on 20-9-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

We're not 100% certain where, how or why life started. It has no bearing on what we know about evolution as evolution is about changes in existing life, no matter where, whyborvhow it started, just as long as it did.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




We're not 100% certain where, how or why life started.

I don't think we're 5% certain.
Not that it matters.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79




We're not 100% certain where, how or why life started.

I don't think we're 5% certain.
Not that it matters.


Precisely. The only thing that matters is that life started. Studying Modern Evolution Synthesis DOESN'T cover where, why or how. But neoholographic will reply with how we NEED to know because "reasons" lol.
edit on 2092016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

We're not 100% certain where, how or why life started. It has no bearing on what we know about evolution as evolution is about changes in existing life, no matter where, whyborvhow it started, just as long as it did.


This makes no sense. How can you make the statement IT HAS NO BEARING on what we know about evolution. How do you know this when you say Evolution MUST HAVE LIFE TO EXIST. How can Evolution be something separate from the Origin of Life when it depends on Life for it's very existence?

What a ridiculious statement.

Secondly, you haven't answered or responded to any questions, so I ask again:

Tell me, where did Evolution originate and how or did it just magically pop into existence? As you guys said earlier, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE.

Is evolution some sort of invisible, magical thing? It's a physical process so of course how life, which you guys say IT MUST HAVE, is connected to how things came to be.

If there wasn't any life, would evolution exists?


You keep making these blanket, meaningless statemets about evolution like people should accept it because you said it even though you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support what you're saying. You sound like that Jehovah's Witness that knocked on the door a few summer's ago.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Posting the same nonesense over and over again won't make it right.

We don't need to know where, why or how life started to understand evolution. The only person here who thinks so, is you.

Why don't you show us some peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC paper that says we need to know? Oh, that's right, it's your opinion based on a complete lack of understanding of science.

Thanks for playing. Want a cookie?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You said:

We don't need to know where, why or how life started to understand evolution.

How many times have I said you can understand evolution and how many times have you repeated this same nonsense? Like I said, you answer no question and you never support anything you say.

You can understand evolution BUT THAT UNDERSTANDING WILL BE INCOMPLETE WITHOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

I have said this over and over again yet you still keep repeating the same nonsense.

Again:

Tell me, where did Evolution originate and how or did it just magically pop into existence? As you guys said earlier, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE.

Is evolution some sort of invisible, magical thing? It's a physical process so of course how life, which you guys say IT MUST HAVE, is connected to how things came to be.

If there wasn't any life, would evolution exists?


We understand gravity but that understanding is incomplete because we don't know Origins. So we're looking into different theories of quantum gravity and if gravity was an emergent property instead of a fundamental force.

The problem you have is that you want to blindly believe in evolution therefore there can never be any questioning of evolution. You make these blanket statements that we don't need to know the Origin of Life to understand Evolution even though you said evolution MUST HAVE LIFE!

How do you know that knowing the origin of life will not change our understanding of evolution?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Again, you're just saying the same crap and asking the same questions (that I and others have already answered) over and over again. You're very boring.

The only thing we need to know about "origins" to understand evolution is that there is an origin. That's it.

If the answer was goddidit, aliens, primordial soup, unicorn farts, masons or whatever else, it would make NO DIFFERENCE to what we know about evolution because evolution only deals with what happens AFTER LIFE HAS STARTED.

I also find it amusing that you haven't linked to anything that would reinforce your point. ALL you've done is cry about why we need to know, all based on your own opinion. Guess what? Your opinion means nothing.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Wow guy. Just wow.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You said:

evolution only deals with what happens AFTER LIFE HAS STARTED.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS????

This is just an asinine statement after saying evolution MUST have life.

How do you know the the Origin of Life and Evolution aren't one continuous process? How can you say evolution only deals with what happens after life when according to you evolution must have life?

You make these blanket statements in a vacuum based on a blind belief. That's like saying we have an understanding of General Relativity and even though the classical world is connected to quantum mechanics we can blindly say gravity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics LOL.

It's just silly. You say evolution needs life to exist yet the Origin of Life is totally cut off from our understanding of evolution. This is belief talking not Science.




top topics



 
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join