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: 20
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Noinden

You said:

Guess what those are also not compleatly understood, yet they happen.

BINGO LOL!!!

You have just said what I have been saying the entire post. Again, you said:

b) You don't believe in evolution, any more than you believe in thermodynamics, kinetics, SN1 and SN2 mechanisms, and Gravity. Guess what those are also not compleatly understood, yet they happen.

THOSE AREN'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD!

Of course evolution isn't completely understood because we don't know the Origin of Life. It's even worse with evolution because Darwinist don't even know the Origin of Evolution when they say evolution must have life.

This is just a belief.

Without the orgin of life, evolution is an incomplete theory because evolution depends on life for it's very existence. I don't know why Darwinist have this fantasy about a line that separates evolution from the origin of life when you say it's existence depends on life.

At least with gravity there's theories about it's origins but with evolution there's no such thing and that's because evolution is tied to the origin of life.


Umm the origin of evolution is when genetic material is transfered from one generation the next... Haven't you been told where babies come from?




posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Careful he will use the term ASININE at you
We are trying to work out what he has been told/read/downloaded from the Matrix to be honest.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) about a hypothesised pre-RNA form of life. IIRC the biggest problem with the hypothesis was that we don't know if ANY life could exist pre-RNA. It could also be that pre-RNA was still RNA, but at a more basic level.

It's been quite a while since I read it though. I might be mixing things up in my head (Mandela Effect explained?).
edit on 2092016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

RNA is pretty basic.
Basic. Get it.

Like in bases?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You just reminded me of my old spectrum zx days lol.

I was thinking more along the lines of non cellular life. Pre single called organism stuff. Imagine a cell of RNA without the cell (type of thing).



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Perhaps in your origional time line God did it? You moved to a better timeline/universe in protest?

Yeah there are all sorts of hypotheses. Short of building a time ship/TARDIS we're going to guess a lot, but never really know



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You have two pun tokens left for the day, use them wisely



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yeah. Definitely need a tardis lol.

I just googled some of the stuff I typed. I think I might have found the type of thing I was saying.

Syncytial

ETA: I'm now waaaaaaay outside of anything that I've learned or know about. It's interesting though

edit on 2092016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Noinden

You said:

Guess what those are also not compleatly understood, yet they happen.

BINGO LOL!!!

You have just said what I have been saying the entire post. Again, you said:

b) You don't believe in evolution, any more than you believe in thermodynamics, kinetics, SN1 and SN2 mechanisms, and Gravity. Guess what those are also not compleatly understood, yet they happen.

THOSE AREN'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD!

Of course evolution isn't completely understood because we don't know the Origin of Life. It's even worse with evolution because Darwinist don't even know the Origin of Evolution when they say evolution must have life.

This is just a belief.

Without the orgin of life, evolution is an incomplete theory because evolution depends on life for it's very existence. I don't know why Darwinist have this fantasy about a line that separates evolution from the origin of life when you say it's existence depends on life.

At least with gravity there's theories about it's origins but with evolution there's no such thing and that's because evolution is tied to the origin of life.


Umm the origin of evolution is when genetic material is transfered from one generation the next... Haven't you been told where babies come from?


This is just hogwash.

You can't know the origin of evolution without knowing the origin of life.

Exactly at what point did evolution kick in?

Where was evolution prior to this point? Did it have some ghostly existence?

Show me a peer reviewed paper that talks about the origin of evolution.


Evolution could be a macrocosim of something that happens on a smaller scale when the origin of life occurs.

Again, there isn't any such thing as the origin of evolution because evolution is incomplete without the origin of life. You will not find a peer reviewed paper that even talks about such a notion.

Scientist talk about things like the RNA World or Panspermia as they relate to evolution. Nobody talks about the origin of evolution because as the guys on this thread have said, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE.

This means evolution is incomplete without the Origin of Life because evolution isn't some invisible magical thing that's just sitting there. It's Origins are with Life.

Again, at what point did evolution occur? Was it hiding in the primordial goo somewhere LOL??



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




You can't know the origin of evolution without knowing the origin of life.

Are you sure?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Care to prove your opinion with a peer reviewed paper?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

What part of "life" operates outside the bounday of chemistry? (Incuding how genetic material operates and is bonded together)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

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?


Please take note everyone. This is where Neo's major misunderstanding lies (it's difficult because he just keeps repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum and won't address any counter points beyond denial). He thinks that evolution is a process in itself and needs an origin. He is ignoring the mechanics of it.

Evolution didn't just pop into existence, it's not a thing, it's a descriptive label of multiple processes in nature. Evolution shows how genes change over time. Processes don't need origins, they just happen. That's like asking for the origin of erosion, and claiming that if we don't know the origin of a rock that has eroded over time, we can't understand erosion. They are unrelated, regardless of how erosion requires things that can be eroded. Genetic mutations are often caused by environmental factors like radiation. They can also be caused by errors in copying. This doesn't mean squat in regards to the origin of life. The factors that cause evolution to happen, are constants in nature. They will continue to happen regardless of whether or not life is there. It just happens that life is affected by these things. That is the cause. The effect is the change of organisms that we observe today and in the fossil record. Scientists call this Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. It doesn't require an origin, just like erosion. It just happens as a result of all those other factors. Take cosmic radiation for example. The earth is affected constantly by this. Life is affected as well.
edit on 9 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah but barcs, how can you explain the path of rivers without understanding the origins of Earth?

Where did this path-seeking ability of rivers come from? Did it just magically pop into existence?

Who guides the paths of rivers? What, your think that they "randomly" follow the path of least resistance by chance? Hmmmm?

Checkmate Dawinists!

edit on 21-9-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Nonsense.

Again,

You gus said EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE and EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE

So the origin of evolution is tied to the origin of life.

Let's look at Erosion since you mentioned it.


In earth science, erosion is the action of surface processes (such as water flow or wind) that remove soil, rock, or dissolved material from one location on the Earth's crust, then transport it away to another location.[1] The particulate breakdown of rock or soil into clastic sediment is referred to as physical or mechanical erosion; this contrasts with chemical erosion, where soil or rock material is removed from an area by its dissolving into a solvent (typically water), followed by the flow away of that solution. Eroded sediment or solutes may be transported just a few millimetres, or for thousands of kilometres.

Natural rates of erosion are controlled by the action of geomorphic drivers, such as rainfall; bedrock wear in rivers; coastal erosion by the sea and waves; glacial plucking, abrasion, and scour; areal flooding; wind abrasion; groundwater processes; and mass movement processes in steep landscapes like landslides and debris flows. The rates at which such processes act control how fast a surface is eroded. Typically, physical erosion proceeds fastest on steeply sloping surfaces, and rates may also be sensitive to some climatically-controlled properties including amounts of water supplied (e.g., by rain), storminess, wind speed, wave fetch, or atmospheric temperature (especially for some ice-related processes). Feedbacks are also possible between rates of erosion and the amount of eroded material that is already carried by, for example, a river or glacier.[2][3] Processes of erosion that produce sediment or solutes from a place contrast with those of deposition, which control the arrival and emplacement of material at a new location.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...

Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually read what you post. Everything you just said supports what I'm saying and even morso with evolution and the origin of life which is a vastly more complex system. Key point:

Natural rates of erosion are controlled by the action of geomorphic drivers, such as rainfall; bedrock wear in rivers; coastal erosion by the sea and waves; glacial plucking, abrasion, and scour; areal flooding; wind abrasion; groundwater processes; and mass movement processes in steep landscapes like landslides and debris flows. The rates at which such processes act control how fast a surface is eroded.

We know the origins of erosion and it's not the rock. It's the atmospheric conditions around the rock. You said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

The reason why we don't see the origin of evolution like we know the origin of erosion because there's no such thing as the origin of evolution without knowing the origin of life.

This is why abiogenisis, panspermia, directed panpermia, intelligent design, RNA world and more talk about evolution. This is because the origin of evolution depends on the origin of life.

You can't find any peer reviewed papers that talk about the origin of evolution. You can find peer reviewed studies that talk about erosion though. You can look at Wiki and see the cause of erosion which I just pointed out. You can't do this with evolution because evolution REQUIRES LIFE as you said.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Ahh the word dealership only had a hogwash to use while your ASININE was serviced? Shame, those subcompact words don't get quite as good pickup.

Do you follow the Goebbels approach, and assume taht if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth? Because you shout (you use caps, there fore it is a shouted statement) the same phrases, like a religious mantra over and over again. With out supporting evidence. I can only assume that you can't support this.

Also you have unanswered questions in the que, what are you hiding in the primordial goo of your mind?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The hogwash broke down, and you had to drive a nonsense now? I bet you can't wait untill the ASININE gets the parts it needs?

Ooo shouting with bolded text too, you're on a roll Mr Goebbels uh Neo.

You've missed the point, that evolution does not care how life began. Mainly because its not a being, but also. It happens no matter what.

I also note you are now cutting and pasting things directly from places, rather than putting your own words or citing the source. That is intellectually dishonest.

Come now heir Goebbels uh neo, share your origional thoughts, the ones from the primordial soup of your consciousness. Otherwise your are just being ASININE. Oh and by the way, I took your word for a spin, I hope you don't mind.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Can you explain how the difference between life arising from non-life vs. the first primitive life being created by a god changes our understanding of genetic changes sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity?

After all, if origins is so important to MES then you can explain the difference each origin would have on evolution.
edit on 21-9-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Care to back up your opinions with a peer reviewed paper?

You're doing a very obvious job at ignoring this and other questions. Your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Sure it is, its on three-ply perforated stock, that is soft.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join