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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
That's like saying, Toyota cars needs a blueprint to be built but we don't need the blueprint in order to know how different Toyota's change over time.


I totally agree with that statement. Go to a shopping centre and look for Toyota's, you will see small difference between the older and the newer ones.

Old ones won't have electric windows. New one's will. You can see and test the "evolution" of Toyota's just through observation without needing a blueprint.

Denying that cars over time have evolved because you do not have access to their blueprints is intellectually dishonest and provably wrong.




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

No life doesn't evolve the way it does because of genetic mutations. We can't know why life evolves the way it does without knowing the Origin of Life.


Again, this is a blatant lie. Scientists already know exactly why life evolves the way it does. You are just making this up and repeating it ad nauseum in an appeal to personal belief. It's like saying that we can't know about cell theory without first completely understanding the big bang. It's pure nonsense. We don't know the origin of gravity, but gravity still exists, just like evolution. You are basically using wishful thinking to come up with your connection, because you haven't even made it yet, you brought up a "what if" scenario. You've shown no reason to suggest evolution is invalid, and still have not addressed any evidence.
edit on 9 17 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerryDon79

Just common sense if you know anything about Science.

The reason why everyone is rushing to a multiverse or a cyclical universe is because the Cosmological Constant was fine tuned to 120 decimal places and the theory as to what it should be was off by 58 decimal places. Scientist knew this couldn't occur naturally without some sort of multiverse and they still can't explain how this value naturally occurred or if this constant can take all of these different values.

If we find that at the heart of the Origin of Life is a value that's fine tuned to 70 decimal places then you will see theories popping up called The Theory of Parallel Evolution LOL!

Like you said, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE!!!


LOL anything to avoid actually discussing evolution. This is hilarious. You have not yet even described or mentioned anything relevant to evolution at all. You have avoided it by deferring to the origin of life and now the multiverse idea. What's next? Are you going to debunk nuclear fusion by referring to the origin of black holes? Or perhaps you can argue against plate tectonics by talking about moon formation theory.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

That's a lot of words to not answer a simple question.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Just common sense if you know anything about Science.


All the best or at least most interesting science happens when common sense is ignored and we look at the actual facts without bringing in our own biases.

I'll annoy my fellow Darwinists and heathens by saying this but I actually agree with you regarding Abiogenesis.
It's a missing piece in the puzzle of evolution, and we may gain further insight into how evolution works once, and if it is ever understood.

But it's a big puzzle and most of the pieces fit. To stretch the analogy to breaking point. Abiogenesis is the top left corner piece of a puzzle. We have most of the picture with one piece relying on the next relying on the next...

You can't ignore the picture of a house because their may be a bird flying in the sky on the piece we are missing.
You also can't take the corner piece from a different puzzle and hit it with a bible until it fits.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ParasuvO

Evolution has never been presented as explaining the origin of life, ....
It is fundamental misunderstandings like that that make these conversations impossible.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

...Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life. According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution...
..
Bernal coined the term biopoiesis in 1949 to refer to the origin of life.[90] In 1967, he suggested that it occurred in three "stages":

1. the origin of biological monomers
2. the origin of biological polymers
3. the evolution from molecules to cells

Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between stages 1 and 2.
...
The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.
...
Following on from chemical evolution came the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.

It's rather dishonest or unreasonable to now quickly pretend that you either used the word "evolution" to refer to what is described above as "biological evolution" or make an argument about "evolution" just meaning "change", when the word "evolution" has most definitely been used in stories presented as 'explanations' regarding the origin of life. Quite extensively actually, the searchterm "evol" has more than 100 occurances on that wikipedia page for abiogenesis. When people like you are making comments like the way you just phrased it, and your 'buddies' (in philosophy) aren't correcting you and going right along, you're really being very unconvincing in your argumentation and attempts to make others seem ignorant as if they don't understand the word "evolution". Molecular evolution and chemical evolution, are all still evolution, just adding another word in front of it to specify a type of evolution doesn't negate that. So even though we all know you were thinking about biological evolution, that's not what you said. Making your statement rather misleading and a capitalization on the ambiguity of language (in this case intentionally created ambiguity regarding the word "evolution" by evolutionary philosophers to facilitate in all this).

Note that all living organisms consist of at least 1 cell. So if "biological evolution" led to the first cell, wikipedia seems to suggest biological evolution is part of the story of abiogenesis as well.

Also note that I could use many more sources such as dictionaries regarding the topic of chemical evolution/abiogenesis, but I've done that plenty of times before and it's just denied, twisted, or ignored. As the illogical and unreasonable false claims and statements are repeated over and over with total disregard for the facts, including the historical facts such as how all the people mentioned above presented "evolution" (of whatever type).
edit on 18-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Literally the first paragraph of your source:


Abiogenesis (Brit.: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnᵻsᵻs, -ˌbaɪə-, -ˌbiːoʊ-, -ˌbiːə-/[1][2][3][4] ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis[5] or OoL (Origins of Life),[6] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[7][8][9][10] It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1[11] billion years ago. Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.[12]


It's always funny to see people debunked by their own sources.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped
I have no idea how what you've quoted in any way negates anything I said, or argues against it. Let alone debunks it. Historical facts about how people have used the word "evolution" in presentations sometimes called explanations regarding the origin of life are a little hard to debunk anyway, they already happened. Those people said (printed) what they said.

Historical fact: the word "evolution" has been presented in stories presented as explaining the origin of life, to such an extent and in such key places (often in place of "magic"), that it is also appropiate to say that "evolution has been presented as explaining the origin of life" (no matter how a person wants to come back on that comment and twist it so it somehow supposedly isn't an accurate description of what has happened and is still going on, anticipating a useless debate on that minor detail as to how you're going to phrase it).

Observable fact (currently on wikipedia):

The terms "Molecular evolution", "chemical evolution", "biological evolution", "evolution", "abiogenesis", "natural selection" and a couple of more terms are all presented as explaining the origin of life. Sometimes in combination with eachother (evolution and natural selection, chemical evolution followed by biological evolution), sometimes on their own (chemical evolution, molecular evolution, abiogenesis). The common denominator in all the stories is almost always "evolution" or a grammatical variant of "evolve".

Proverbs 20:3

3 It is honorable for a man to refrain from a dispute,

But every fool will become embroiled in it.

edit on 18-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You can play the dictionary abuse game until the cows come home but it doesn't change the facts.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
^Exactly. He's been doing this for years, and every fallacy he commits, he accuses everyone else of doing without any justification.

a reply to: whereislogic

Really? You constantly complain about folks being vague with terminology and you use the "Chemical evolution theory of life". You are like a broken record. Biological evolution is not the chemical evolution theory of life, and that isn't even a scientific theory. The word evolution has multiple meanings and once again, you dishonestly equivocate them. You and I personally have already discussed this claim in depth, yet you just keep pretending none of it ever happened and keep posting the same nonsense you have posted numerous times already. A little bit of honesty would be nice here, but you are dead set in posting that propaganda and still won't address any counterpoints I have already made to your claims.

It's just odd that you constantly accuse others of twisting things, when you are doing exactly that with the meanings of the word evolution.

Why is it so difficult for you guys to actually talk about real mechanism of evolution, when attempting to argue against it? It's always the same played out nonsense that has already been debunked 20 years ago. Time to grow up. Stop avoiding the topic or at least use the proper terminology. If you have issues with the origin of life, then say THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. If you have issues with abiogenesis, then say ABIOGENESIS. It's not that difficult.


edit on 9 18 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
Is it wrong to say evolution is impossible without abiogenesis.

I see them as separate sciences with a clear handover point however now I'm starting to doubt my puzzle analogy now.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Biological evolution is not the chemical evolution theory of life, ...

As usual you try to change the subject again and ignore that the person I responded to never said "biological evolution" (and pretend I'm dishonestly equivocating them, that's the real reason you're saying the above as if I've ever made that claim; and then if I say something about it, then it's probably, 'oh no, that's not what I was saying or implying', switching the accusation to just the word "evolution" or all the terminologies that use the word "evolution").

Chemical evolution is still evolution. Which is the word he used. And the word "evolution" itself is also used on its own in the 'explanations' regarding the origin of life on the wikipage for abiogenesis. As well as the term "biological evolution" that supposedly leads to the first cells.


It's rather dishonest or unreasonable to now quickly pretend that you either used the word "evolution" to refer to what is described above as "biological evolution" or make an argument about "evolution" just meaning "change", when the word "evolution" has most definitely been used in stories presented as 'explanations' regarding the origin of life. Quite extensively actually, the searchterm "evol" has more than 100 occurances on that wikipedia page for abiogenesis.


That counts as much for you as it does for the person I was responding to. But I know, you don't care about honesty or being reasonable about this subject, too busy with your usual attack-dog routine.

And you are fully aware that it was Haldane and Oparin (and others approving of their publications, including Wikipedia) that used the term "chemical evolution theory of life", they are the ones (and others) promoting their myth as a scientific theory first, then demoting it back to a so-called hypothesis which it also isn't. And their 'buddies' (in philosophy) then followed that up by trying to seperate it from the rest of the evolutionary philosophies cause those were a little less obviously recognized as nonsense and wishful imagination.
edit on 18-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
What does it matter?

Is there any claim that can be made stronger if we just class everything as evolution. There would have to be subclasses as many different processes exist if we're covering everything that has gradually changed over 14billion years.

But just for the sake of it. Let's call it all evolution.

Now what, can any claim be strengthened or weakened?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
It's the evolutionary philosophers promoting evolutonary philosophies that are labeling everything as evolution:

cosmic evolution
chemical evolution
molecular evolution
biological evolution
stellar evolution
etc.

According to their terminology, it's all evolution (otherwise you shouldn't be calling it evolution, the terms listed above are also all based on the same core philosophy, 'Mother Nature did it' and philosophical naturalism).

I think the unreasonable behaviour of the adherents of these evolutionary philosophies is weakening their claims considerably. How long can people stick their head in the sand regarding how the word "evolution" is actually used by the promoters of evolutionary philosophers? Their gurus.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

It's called science, not philosophy.

You would understand that if you left your cult and picked up a science book.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
According to their terminology, it's all evolution



You're never going to grasp this, are you.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

cosmic systems
chemical systems
biological systems
solar systems

Is there any doubt that in the terminology above in all cases I'm talking about "systems"? What's there to grasp? The only thing I'm grasping is that some people are being extremely unreasonable about this, almost as if they're doing it on purpose. Well, that's a rather strong feeling or hunch I'm getting.

Here's an easier example perhaps:

blue shirts
white shirts
green shirts
red shirts

I'm still talking about shirts in all cases.

I like the demonstration how scared some people seem to be in acknowledging anything rational concerning the subject of chemical evolution in relation to the word "evolution", or desperate to make sure that no one even wants to consider what I'm pointing towards. It really is a "no-go zone" for some people:

edit on 18-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Evolution isn't about different colour shirts. Did your cult tell you it was?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Evidently not.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
Cool, so it makes no difference whatsoever.

It gets worse too, there's also the evolution of fashion, language, film, we already discussed Toyotas.

People describe the gradual change of things by using a word meaning the gradual change of things.

I fail to see the problem.




top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join