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: 23
1
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Wow, you're becoming unhinged over this silly erosion argument. There's a reason that nobody has joined you in this silly argument. That's because it's sensless.

You said:

Erosion can't happen without things that can be eroded.

Really????

Erosion originates with things like water, wind and ice not with the things like soil and rocks that are being eroded. If you can't undertand this, you need to rejoin a 9th grade science class LOL. Maybe this will help you out.

Earth Science for Kids


Erosion is the wearing away of the land by forces such as water, wind, and ice. Erosion has helped to form many interesting features of the Earth's surface including mountain peaks, valleys, and coastlines.


www.ducksters.com...

Water, wind and ice are REQUIRED for erosion. This is where erosion originates.

Now, let's look at evolution. You said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I agree and without the origin of the life that you say is required, evolution is incomplete.

If we didn't know about water, wind and ice, we will still be looking for how this originates and what forces causes this to happen.

Like I said, you need to
with this silly argument because you're looking pretty desperate.




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Every substance can be eroded. The amount of the erosion is dependant on the material being eroded, the chemistry, and physical nature of the eroding agent.

So you quote a kids science site? Is this at your understanding level? OR just the low hanging fruit of a google search?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
So I haven't read all 23 pages, but I'm getting the gist of the discussion.

How much water was assumed to be on Earth 3.7 billion years ago in a form that could either provide rainfall or pool in enough volume for tidal pools? Because erosion doesn't just need a substrate to erode, it needs a flowing solvent to work on the substrate.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Well wind can erode too (its fluid, and can solvate, not as well, but yeah) .... and to answer the rest? I think its another hand wave thing.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Well wind can erode too (its fluid, and can solvate, not as well, but yeah) .... and to answer the rest? I think its another hand wave thing.


Fair enough, but it's doubtful that the components assumed to be necessary for life to form were brought together in a windstorm.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not arguing, just being pedantic. I'm a physical scientist (Chemist) after all


I think the answer to your question is that there was sufficient water 3.7 billion years ago.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Are you willing to admit that article is flawed?


I didn't spend the time to read through the whole thing. Not all that interested, and way too many other things, lately, to take up my time.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
But was that water available as sufficient rainfall or large enough for tidal action? Supposedly the Earth was in the heavy bombardment period at that time, or just leaving it. The planet may have been hot enough to prevent water from easily collecting in large bodies or condensing. Energy from the Sun can't be discounted either. We're in the Goldilocks zone now, but what was the Sun like back then?

I'm being the devil's advocate (ha ha) here. My main take-away from the article is that we need to recalibrate our thinking on what conditions have to be like for life to emerge spontaneously. The Earth becomes more and more harsh of an environment the further back you go.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Now now, according to creationists, I'm a satanist, so you would be stealing my job, I'll have the union after you


All your questions are valid. However it looks like life could exist then hence the answer is "it happened, and we have fossils". Its still insufficient data to say much more.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

While that is fine. We could also discuss what "theory" means in science vs every day lexicon. I am sure you'd not be interested in that either?

I've yet to see any data from creationists. Just dogma. As a spiritual person, I could put dogma in too, but someones Karma would hit it.


I know what it means. The point is, even the best theories are not 100% certain. We think we know something, and then discover that we don't. There are people questioning Einstein's theories, at this stage. Scientists now now that there is more to DNA coding than they ever suspected, and they have no idea how it all works. All the time, things we think we know are shown to be wrong. Assuming that it's correct, simply because a lot of people believe it, isn't good science. Good science is willing to consider new possibilities. Good science doesn't write something off simply because it might match up with a religious belief.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Now now, according to creationists, I'm a satanist, so you would be stealing my job, I'll have the union after you


All your questions are valid. However it looks like life could exist then hence the answer is "it happened, and we have fossils". Its still insufficient data to say much more.


*shrug* I'm a Christian and an microbiologist. No doubt life existed that far back. The question is how did it originate and by what mechanism? Just tells me we have a lot more to learn about biochemistry and that our ideas need to go back to the drawing board.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes but good science never says it is 100% sure of something. Can religion say that?

I'm involved with the science that includes DNA coding on a regular basis, though usually I am making small molecule pharmaceuticals for clients, sometimes they get inventive in what they want
I understand its not as simple as expected, it is however not as hard as people imply either.

As for writing something off? Science does not write deities off. Its out of the sphere science operates in, as you can't collect data on it. Supernatural is out side nature, science is involved with the measurable universe. Basically use the right tool for the job. You'd not use a packet of ramen, to perform open heart surgery



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Those questions have nothing to do with evolution however. People need to stop using the wrong theory on questions of science.

Oh and I'm a neopagan and a pharmaceutical chemist (work in industry)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Those questions have nothing to do with evolution however. People need to stop using the wrong theory on questions of science.

Oh and I'm a neopagan and a pharmaceutical chemist (work in industry)


I never said they did. The article focuses on the conditions for abiogenesis.

But at the same time you can't have evolution of life without life existing in the first place. Therefore I think the manner of how life begins is critical to understand how life changes over time. Just like the ripples in a liquid are influenced by the object that drops in to start, the temperature of the liquid, density/viscosity, etc. It all narrows back to the initial spark.

Edit: I'm a quality control / stability manager (mix of microbiology and stats) in a bio-pharma facility. Also industry.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

What is the title of the entire thread? Is Abiogenesis in it? Nope. QED there is a disconnect from the creationist crowd.

As for the next part?

The theory of evolution does not in any way shape or form, talk about how life began, just how it changes. Thus it does not need to address it, we understand how things evolve pretty damned well, mutations, in DNA.

To suddenly say "it makes no sense to include how life started in this" is moving the goal post. There is also no evidence that it needs to be included. When that evidence does or does not appear, then it can be reassessed, but you don't change science because its unpopular with non scientists.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Teikiatsu

What is the title of the entire thread? Is Abiogenesis in it? Nope. QED there is a disconnect from the creationist crowd.

As for the next part?

The theory of evolution does not in any way shape or form, talk about how life began, just how it changes. Thus it does not need to address it, we understand how things evolve pretty damned well, mutations, in DNA.


Actually, no we don't. We know ways that DNA mutates. We know how DNA combines and preserve genetic information. Evolve, not so much. Good ideas on paper, but nothing concrete.


To suddenly say "it makes no sense to include how life started in this" is moving the goal post. There is also no evidence that it needs to be included. When that evidence does or does not appear, then it can be reassessed, but you don't change science because its unpopular with non scientists.


I didn't say anything like that. I'm saying it makes sense to understand how abiogenesis works because that is obviously the starting point for evolution. The bacteria that created stromatolites were not the first form of life on the planet, they are just one of the earliest we have ever been able to discover. They evolved from something. It's almost like reverse engineering.

In my opinion saying that evolution should not include abiogenesis is a dodge, a cop-out. It's ignoring the 800 pound gorilla.
edit on 22-9-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

We are going to have to agree to disagree on needing to know about any type of proteogenesis (be it abio or other).

Your opinion is your opinion. As you are a microbiologist go find evidence. Do you feel spiritually impelled to find out how it was created? However there is absolutely no need to know how life occurred. Its a different problem.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I think that whole bit about "not needing to know' is a bit like sticking a head in the sand.

Seeing as evolution is an historical account of lineages from a single ancestor - i.e. LUCA - doesn't it beg the question of how LUCA came into existence? LUCA was biological, yes? Logically it must have been the result of an evolutionary process.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

You can think that. But it does not effect the fact evolution is going on. Its not historical, it is a current thing, going on each and every generation of a species (unless it goes extinct clearly).

So why do you think that evolution is just a historical account?

As for the "single ancestor", it does not matter how they came to be. Does your phone, or toaster work only because you know how it works? No? Yes?

To insist on something having to rely on another, with out proof of that, is not science. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
That's not evolution, though. You are making the same mistake as Neo. That's not 200 million less years for evolution. That's 200m less years for abiogenesis, and it's also very presumptive because we don't know when the "soup" began "brewing".

All you need is self replication and variation.


originally posted by: Barcs
Natural selection could be a factor, yes, but it really depends on how you use the term. At first there weren't any alleles to select for, since reproduction did not occur until after abiogenesis.

All you need is self replication and variation.


originally posted by: Barcs
Sure there were environmental pressures, but not technically natural selection.

Then what was it? , technically speaking


originally posted by: Barcs
Yes, it's one continuum, so to speak, but it's not one process.

Of course it's all one process. We're still a bunch of biochemicals doing it's own thing.

I might as well ask you too then - How do you suppose LUCA arrived on the scene?




top topics



 
1
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join