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: 24
1
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Evolutionary tales speak of all living things being related and descending from a LUCA. It is only a convenient out for anyone to say it doesn't matter how LUCA came to be. We all evolve because of a genetic code that we have no clue how it came to be. It's the heart and soul of evolution yet it doesn't matter how it came into existence. That doesn't sound very scientific at all.

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




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Your biases are peaking out


The "tale" you are talking about really is humanity adding to a theory. Biological evolution is as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. We can indeed interpolate the data back to a theoretical ancestor. HOWEVER it does not matter how the first ancestor came to be a living thing. Please tell me you don't think that the genetic clans (7 daughters of Eve etc) are more than interpolations?

Adding in "the heart and soul of evolution" is in essence anthropomorphizing something that is just happening. It does not have a heart and soul, it is a mechanism in nature. Is their a "heart and soul" in Kinetics, thermodynamics, gravity, electromagnetisim etc? Or perchance they are just things that happen in nature.

SO using the "it is a convenient out", then evolution should tie all the other theories, and hypotheses of science into itself as well, and itself into all of them?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
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


Depends on the religion. Many of those, with many different beliefs. Religions tend to be about faith, though, while science claims to be about facts.

As for DNA, I am talking about finds such as these -

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code

The Human Genome Is Far More Complex Than Scientists Thought

The more w think we know, the more we discover how little we know at all.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That is good science, you discover new things, you change the theory.

However most religions do indeed struggle to change when something comes along that "shakes their foundations", but no not all. Creationism (a sub set of several religions, not just Abrahamic ones) however is one which will not change.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
All you need is self replication and variation.


Of course you need self replication for evolution, which justifies my point. Evolution cannot happen until there are replicating organisms. Prior to that you are looking at abiogenesis, not evolution. Your quarrel about having 200m years less time means nothing and your statement above in no way negates the points I made.


originally posted by: Barcs
Then what was it? , technically speaking


What was what? Last I checked, we don't know everything about abiogenesis, but we do know that it couldn't have been natural selection based on the definition in biology at least:


natural selection. n. The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, organisms that are better adapted to their environment tend to survive longer and transmit more of their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations than do those that are less well adapted.


Can you explain how this applies to abiogenesis? This is why I said it depends how you use the term. Some people refer to natural selection as simple environmental pressures or influence. There's no question the environment influenced abiogenesis, but claiming NS doesn't really jive with me because there was nothing to select for prior to replication.


originally posted by: Barcs
Of course it's all one process. We're still a bunch of biochemicals doing it's own thing.


*Facepalm* It's NOT one process. It is several with different mechanisms for each. And don't even try to argue semantics on the word process with this one. I won't respond to that, I conveyed my point clearly.


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


Maybe I should nitpick your use of LUCA here because it's not the first life. It's the most recent common ancestor to life on earth today. I already gave you my beliefs on this topic. Personally I don't care, it doesn't matter how the first life got here, in the context of evolution.


It's the heart and soul of evolution yet it doesn't matter how it came into existence. That doesn't sound very scientific at all.


Anybody that claims abiogenesis is the heart and soul of evolution is clueless on the fundamental differences between the 2 things. Your statement above is what doesn't sound scientific at all.

If you believe this, then please give me some examples of how abiognesis mechanisms can carry over to evolution without equivocation or appeals to the unknown.


edit on 9 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Not one single original line in that whole post. The fact that you have to rely on repeating false things over and over with condescending rheortic speaks volumes. Our understanding of evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. Until you provide evidence of this, you are just stating your opinion. Unfortunately that doesn't make it fact, nor does it make our understanding of evolution wrong.

Also it's hilarious that you would dishonestly nitpick my example of erosion to the nth degree, yet think comparing it to poker is a more valid comparison. Hypocrisy at it's worst.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
We're not exactly sure how the Earth was originally formed...
...Therefore our understanding of volcanism, erosion, and seismology must be faulty.

That seems to be what the people who confuse abiogenesis with evolution-through-natural-selection must think.


edit on 2016-9-23 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Noinden

...We all evolve because of a genetic code that we have no clue how it came to be. It's the heart and soul of evolution yet it doesn't matter how it came into existence. That doesn't sound very scientific at all.


Not really. There is no "genetic code" inside of us that tells us how to evolve; there is no internal biological mechanism in our DNA that is controlling biological evolution. Rather, biological evolution is controlled by outside forces, such as the forces of nature that cause an organism to have a mutation, and the outside force of natural selection that causes an organism with certain traits to (generally) survive longer than an organism with other traits.

Sure -- you could argue that perhaps there would be mutations that occur anyway, without any outside forces of nature, just because of the way life is built. That may (or may not) be true, but that is not a requirement for evolution to take place. You could also argue that the way life is constructed has an effect on how evolution works (but that simply would be the same as saying that how a rock is constructed has an effect on how it erodes)...

...However, the idea that the mechanism of evolution needs to be INTRINSICALLY ENCODED ON LIFE rather than HAPPENS TO LIFE is false. "How to evolve" is not a specific instruction written in an organism's DNA.


edit on 2016-9-23 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

LOL that is fantastic!
You stand in the soap box and talk about how people should take in depth looks at things and find the facts and truth for themselves and then you are going to say you didn't even read the article all the way through after saying it had an interesting point?!



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thank you! You explained that way better than I did.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!


As usual, faulty logic. We DO know where the combustion engine comes from and how it is made. The car doesn't "change over time" to invent the engine.

Evolution is change over time. Change and evolution of the DNA molecule, its code and its output requires some life form to house the molecule for processing. Even when it's done in the lab it can only be accomplished under very strict conditions which mimic the chemistry of life.

Your logic and analogy is evidence of your lack of understanding of the entire subject.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

This reply makes no sense. You said:

Sure -- you could argue that perhaps there would be mutations that occur anyway, without any outside forces of nature, just because of the way life is built. That may (or may not) be true, but that is not a requirement for evolution to take place. You could also argue that the way life is constructed has an effect on how evolution works (but that simply would be the same as saying that how a rock is constructed has an effect on how it erodes)...

...However, the idea that the mechanism of evolution needs to be INTRINSICALLY ENCODED ON LIFE rather than HAPPENS TO LIFE is false. "How to evolve" is not a specific instruction written in an organism's DNA.


First off, if you don't know how life is built, THEN HOW DO YOU THAT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR EVOLUTION TO TAKE PLACE?

This makes no sense. I will give you an example.

We know the universe is expanding but without the Cosmological Constant, our knowledge of this expansion would be incomplete.

So HOW TO EVOLVE can be written in the conditions that originated life. You don't know that and any attempt to act like you do isn't Science but belief.

Back to the Cosmological Constant. Prediction were made as to what the Cosmological Constant should be. They were off by 58 decimal places and this is called the vacuum catastrophe. This value was fine tuned to 120 dcimal places and new theories had to emerge to try and explain this.

When we discover the conditions that sparked the Origin of Life through Abiogenesis, Panspermia or something else, we can learn the way life evolved is very constrained and determined by what we discover.

This is Science, you don't want to say evolution is incomplete without the origins of life because evolution to you is like the Mahdi is to Muslims or David is to the Jews. You don't want any questions that challenge your belief. That's fine when it comes to Religion because it's about faith. We're talking about Science and sadly DARWINIST use evolution to support their belief system.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!


As usual, faulty logic. We DO know where the combustion engine comes from and how it is made. The car doesn't "change over time" to invent the engine.

Evolution is change over time. Change and evolution of the DNA molecule, its code and its output requires some life form to house the molecule for processing. Even when it's done in the lab it can only be accomplished under very strict conditions which mimic the chemistry of life.

Your logic and analogy is evidence of your lack of understanding of the entire subject.



REALLY????

The part about the car was an analogy. Of course we know about the engine. Do I really have to ABC everything for you to understand it?

It's obvious that was an example. I will be typing forever if you guys can't pick up on these little things and I have to explain things my Nephew can understand.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

This reply makes no sense. You said:

Sure -- you could argue that perhaps there would be mutations that occur anyway, without any outside forces of nature, just because of the way life is built. That may (or may not) be true, but that is not a requirement for evolution to take place. You could also argue that the way life is constructed has an effect on how evolution works (but that simply would be the same as saying that how a rock is constructed has an effect on how it erodes)...

...However, the idea that the mechanism of evolution needs to be INTRINSICALLY ENCODED ON LIFE rather than HAPPENS TO LIFE is false. "How to evolve" is not a specific instruction written in an organism's DNA.


First off, if you don't know how life is built, THEN HOW DO YOU THAT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR EVOLUTION TO TAKE PLACE?

This makes no sense. I will give you an example.

We know the universe is expanding but without the Cosmological Constant, our knowledge of this expansion would be incomplete.

So HOW TO EVOLVE can be written in the conditions that originated life. You don't know that and any attempt to act like you do isn't Science but belief.

Back to the Cosmological Constant. Prediction were made as to what the Cosmological Constant should be. They were off by 58 decimal places and this is called the vacuum catastrophe. This value was fine tuned to 120 dcimal places and new theories had to emerge to try and explain this.

When we discover the conditions that sparked the Origin of Life through Abiogenesis, Panspermia or something else, we can learn the way life evolved is very constrained and determined by what we discover.

This is Science, you don't want to say evolution is incomplete without the origins of life because evolution to you is like the Mahdi is to Muslims or David is to the Jews. You don't want any questions that challenge your belief. That's fine when it comes to Religion because it's about faith. We're talking about Science and sadly DARWINIST use evolution to support their belief system.


That's a lot of BS, even for you! The origin of life and evolution are separate events. Even if you knew the origin of life, it would tell you very little or nothing about evolution going forward for that life. The evolutionary course of life is dependent on the variables present during the lifetime of the life form. And those variables come down to natural selection.

Will the origin of life tell you anything about natural selection? No. If I create life in the lab tomorrow and left it alone to evolve on its own, I may be able to calculate probabilities for its evolution, but I CANNOT influence that course unless I interfere in the process. Therefore, the course of its evolution is totally independent of its origin.


Get it now?

It's about time too.


edit on 23-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!


As usual, faulty logic. We DO know where the combustion engine comes from and how it is made. The car doesn't "change over time" to invent the engine.

Evolution is change over time. Change and evolution of the DNA molecule, its code and its output requires some life form to house the molecule for processing. Even when it's done in the lab it can only be accomplished under very strict conditions which mimic the chemistry of life.

Your logic and analogy is evidence of your lack of understanding of the entire subject.



REALLY????

The part about the car was an analogy. Of course we know about the engine. Do I really have to ABC everything for you to understand it?

It's obvious that was an example. I will be typing forever if you guys can't pick up on these little things and I have to explain things my Nephew can understand.


If it's a lousy example, then think before you write.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!


As usual, faulty logic. We DO know where the combustion engine comes from and how it is made. The car doesn't "change over time" to invent the engine.

Evolution is change over time. Change and evolution of the DNA molecule, its code and its output requires some life form to house the molecule for processing. Even when it's done in the lab it can only be accomplished under very strict conditions which mimic the chemistry of life.

Your logic and analogy is evidence of your lack of understanding of the entire subject.



REALLY????

The part about the car was an analogy. Of course we know about the engine. Do I really have to ABC everything for you to understand it?

It's obvious that was an example. I will be typing forever if you guys can't pick up on these little things and I have to explain things my Nephew can understand.


I made some really clear statements and facts back on page 18 and 19, and then you completely ignored it.

Reading most of what you write is like prying teeth....don't be so surprised people don't understand you.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Just to clarify, at the inception of life, no prediction of the future can be made - whether it was the first life on the planet or the last life. For the first life, there is no history (if there was a first life). Therefore, anything that occurs to that life subsequently is totally dependent on its environment. The original working model which allowed it to be called "life" gave it no future information as to how it would evolve EXCEPT that it could adapt and change.

And because of adaptation and change, the organism evolves INDEPENDENTLY of its origin.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!


As usual, faulty logic. We DO know where the combustion engine comes from and how it is made. The car doesn't "change over time" to invent the engine.

Evolution is change over time. Change and evolution of the DNA molecule, its code and its output requires some life form to house the molecule for processing. Even when it's done in the lab it can only be accomplished under very strict conditions which mimic the chemistry of life.

Your logic and analogy is evidence of your lack of understanding of the entire subject.



REALLY????

The part about the car was an analogy. Of course we know about the engine. Do I really have to ABC everything for you to understand it?

It's obvious that was an example. I will be typing forever if you guys can't pick up on these little things and I have to explain things my Nephew can understand.


If it's a lousy example, then think before you write.



If you can't understand something 5th Graders would get, it's not my fault.

Secondly, Natural Selection isn't Evolution. It's just one aspect of Evolution. It's a concept and it has less importance than DARWINISTS give it. It's important but DARWINIST act like it's a magic wand.

Here's more from Wiki:


Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.[2]

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency).


en.wikipedia.org...

It's just something that acts on the phenotype after a trait reaches the environment. It simply says some traits will thrive and grow while others may die out and find it hard to survive. Again, nothing magical. Here's more:

In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

So Natural Selection could have been occuring in that comet, meteor or space dust if Panspermia is correct, and conditions at the Origin of Life could determine things like Directional Selection.

In population genetics, directional selection is a mode of natural selection in which an extreme phenotype is favored over other phenotypes, causing the allele frequency to shift over time in the direction of that phenotype. Under directional selection, the advantageous allele increases as a consequence of differences in survival and reproduction among different phenotypes. The increases are independent of the dominance of the allele, and even if the allele is recessive, it will eventually become fixed.[1]

An example of directional selection is fossil records that show that the size of the black bears in Europe decreased during interglacial periods of the ice ages, but increased during each glacial period. Another example is the beak size in a population of finches. Throughout the wet years, small seeds were more common and there was such a large supply of the small seeds that the finches rarely ate large seeds. During the dry years, none of the seeds were in great abundance, but the birds usually ate more large seeds. The change in diet of the finches affected the depth of the birds’ beaks in the future generations.Their beaks range from large and tough to small and smooth.[8]


en.wikipedia.org...

You don't know if something like Directional Selection is related to something that occurs because of the conditions present at the Origin of Life.

Sadly, you have belief not Science. So common sense is prohibited. Without the Origin of Life, Evolution is incomplete.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Barcs

Sadly for you, you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!

I know you hate to hear your own words but you said them and they destroy your silly erosion arguement.

If I say the engine is REQUIRED for the car to run but I don't know the origins of the engine then I have an incomplete picture of the car.

It's really just common sense. Like you said:

EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE!


As usual, faulty logic. We DO know where the combustion engine comes from and how it is made. The car doesn't "change over time" to invent the engine.

Evolution is change over time. Change and evolution of the DNA molecule, its code and its output requires some life form to house the molecule for processing. Even when it's done in the lab it can only be accomplished under very strict conditions which mimic the chemistry of life.

Your logic and analogy is evidence of your lack of understanding of the entire subject.



REALLY????

The part about the car was an analogy. Of course we know about the engine. Do I really have to ABC everything for you to understand it?

It's obvious that was an example. I will be typing forever if you guys can't pick up on these little things and I have to explain things my Nephew can understand.


If it's a lousy example, then think before you write.



If you can't understand something 5th Graders would get, it's not my fault.

Secondly, Natural Selection isn't Evolution. It's just one aspect of Evolution. It's a concept and it has less importance than DARWINISTS give it. It's important but DARWINIST act like it's a magic wand.

Here's more from Wiki:


Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.[2]

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency).


en.wikipedia.org...

It's just something that acts on the phenotype after a trait reaches the environment. It simply says some traits will thrive and grow while others may die out and find it hard to survive. Again, nothing magical. Here's more:

In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

So Natural Selection could have been occuring in that comet, meteor or space dust if Panspermia is correct, and conditions at the Origin of Life could determine things like Directional Selection.

In population genetics, directional selection is a mode of natural selection in which an extreme phenotype is favored over other phenotypes, causing the allele frequency to shift over time in the direction of that phenotype. Under directional selection, the advantageous allele increases as a consequence of differences in survival and reproduction among different phenotypes. The increases are independent of the dominance of the allele, and even if the allele is recessive, it will eventually become fixed.[1]

An example of directional selection is fossil records that show that the size of the black bears in Europe decreased during interglacial periods of the ice ages, but increased during each glacial period. Another example is the beak size in a population of finches. Throughout the wet years, small seeds were more common and there was such a large supply of the small seeds that the finches rarely ate large seeds. During the dry years, none of the seeds were in great abundance, but the birds usually ate more large seeds. The change in diet of the finches affected the depth of the birds’ beaks in the future generations.Their beaks range from large and tough to small and smooth.[8]


en.wikipedia.org...

You don't know if something like Directional Selection is related to something that occurs because of the conditions present at the Origin of Life.

Sadly, you have belief not Science. So common sense is prohibited. Without the Origin of Life, Evolution is incomplete.


And????? Who said that natural selection wasn't part of evolution? Not I. You're another one who engages in psychobabble with no hard evidence for your position.

If the mechanics of evolution were dependent upon the origin of life, it would be evidenced in the natural world. And it isn't. The evolutionary course of organisms on this planet are event-driven, whether that event is a mutation, environmental stresses such as weather, heat, cold or any other event that can cause an organism to adapt and change.

You just don't get it. You've never been in a lab. You don't know jacks&()&()&t about how any of this is actually done.

You're making the claim that the origin of life and evolution are one in the same or that one is dependent on the other.
If you have proof, please present it - and I mean citations, not the usual faulty "logic".


edit on 23-9-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
1
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join