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.

 

Watch "Gradual Change of Things" or "Development" (Over Time) in Action

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
Earlier I estimated that the following argument or point would be made:

- it's just their opinion (we haven't had that one yet cause the red herring party is still going strong, but we have had the claim that their other opinions that are tickling the ears of some people here rather than something they don't want to hear, acknowledge or even think about, is "science"; their other opinions, in case that sentence was too long)

Those "other opinions" was for example referring to James Shapiro's views/opinions (page 1 and 2) regarding the so-called "Endosymbiont hypothesis" (not a hypothesis but an evolutionary philosophy and myth that falls under the category "biological evolution" and the origin of Mitochondria and Choroplasts or how Mitochondria and Choroplasts supposedly evolved before they were around, a myth for which no experimental evidence exists that such an event is even possible, let alone that it actually happened in the way it is described, yet Phage described it as "new science to the mix" and it is presented as such by wikipedia, evolutionary philosophers, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others, wikipedia and others even go as far as calling it a "theory" or "evolutionary theory", which can easily leave the impression to a biased reader that they're talking about a so-called "scientific theory", unsupported* myths are not "scientific theories"). *: unsupported = no experimental evidence exists that such an event is possible

Your way of reasoning is not much different as described above. Just instead of calling it "science" you describe an imaginary 'scientific consensus' or agreement that is only between philosophical naturalists calling themselves and eachother "scientists", and even then, it's not really there concerning the details as I've demonstrated with my quotations of them. The only thing they possibly agree on (or the majority of philosophical naturalists and evolutionary philosophers, or those teaching, agreeing with or otherwise arguing for or promoting evolutionary philosophies and myths like that one):

'We don't know yet* but Mother Nature did it anyway'. (*: "not yet fully understood", see quotations on page 3 and notice that they all use the exact same phrase, as if it's taught that way, drilled into the mind to say it that way and give the false impression that progress is being made in this area, or that progress is possible and that only some gaps need to be filled in, see my response in the first quotation and the quotation that I emphasized on page 3 or end of this comment)

No response to what Dr. Tour or I was talking about. I see you primarily as a druid. I don't think druids can make facts disappear by disagreeing with them without a real response and it doesn't matter if it's Dr. Tour, me or anyone else reminding you or others of these facts that I was pointing towards (remember that I gave specific times and a specific subject, there are many things in that video and Dr. Tour's views that I disagree with, I was zooming in on 1 subject that he happened to phrase in a different way than I did, I don't even know who this guy is, but I can tell when he's talking about something that is true/factual and important to understand in relation to evolutionary philosophies).

Are you willing to acknowledge that life is (or living organisms are) made up of interdependent cofunctional machinery and systems of machinery (technology) responsible for the preservation and reproduction of life?

Are you willing to acknowledge that that is a fact or factual/true/correct, without error/accurate description of a reality? Or perhaps part of it?


...no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction. - Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz

The above also counts for all other evolutionary philosophies including the ones that an evolutionary philosopher might describe as being part of the subject "biological evolution" such as the so-called "Endosymbiont hypothesis" a.k.a. "symbiogenesis" a.k.a. "endosymbiotic theory". Last 2 terms are from wikipedia and their sources such as:

Modern endosymbiotic theory: Getting lateral gene transfer into the equation (Journal of Endocytobiosis and Cell Research 2012)

Note the adress of that link using the German translation of the terminology "molecular evolution". That's what that article is listed under. If one is curious about how that terminology is used and how it relates to the terms "biological evolution" and "chemical evolution", one can try the wikipedia page for abiogenesis and search for that term and you can see all 3 of them used in the same paragraph. If one then tries to keep in mind the things I've said about the phrase or 'hidden' common denominator 'Nature did it', perhaps one can even recognize how these terms are used in a rather confusing misleading manner along with words such as "theory" and "scientific". And how the argument of induction or conclusion by induction presented in the videos by Michael Behe and Isaac Newton and earlier in a question in my comment with all the quotations from those who researched these subjects and were willing to say something about it, is ignored and evaded in the sentence:

"There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life."

How do you define "generally accepted"? Couple of million people (among which are those trained and educated in the sciences and working in their relevant field of expertise) that are in agreement about the cause for the origin of life, is that enough to qualify as "generally accepted"? Or do only philosophical naturalists promoting their evolutionary philosophies and calling themselves and eachother scientists or even "the scientific community" count? But we're just going to conveniently ignore that the only myths and unverified unsupported philosophies presented as so-called "hypotheses", "theories" (implied "scientific theories") and implied as "science", "scientific" or "plausible" by these evolutionary philosophers (and wikipedia) all involve the general claim that 'nature did it', so in that sense evolutionary philosophers are in agreement, or the "generally accepted model" (by these philosophers) is 'nature did it', 'nature found a way' for the origin of life. And there is also a "generally accepted model" that is accepted by millions of people that are not relying on fantasizing and speculating into oblivion and marketing+selling (out) oneself and their philosophies as "scientists" and "science" respectively for financial reasons (career and salary-wise, booksales, reputation and admiration in the so-called "scientific community" and the convenient gains that come with it; I could talk about the concept 'publish or perish' here but that would take too long). Because it's the only possible logical and rational conclusion and what all the evidence is pointing towards, explained quite well by Michael Behe and Isaac Newton.
edit on 13-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

edit: and why I'm calling that common denominator 'hidden' (I could also say 'obscured', if you can give it some more thought and detailed look at it, you might figure out some details about the why and the how).



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Neighbour, the moment any of you try the "there is no model for the origin of life" when you are talking about evolution (the change in life). You have lost. They are separate. We've done this dance. You are wrong.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I am talking about evolutionary philosophies and myths such as the one referred to as "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "abiogenesis" as per the topic of my thread that you're responding to. The least you could do is acknowledge these terminologies being used in relation to the topic "the origin of life" as you make another attempt at seperating the topic of "evolution" from the topic of "the origin of life" with no logical justification whatsoever demonstrating and displaying all sorts of dishonesty (with oneself and others) in their way of reasoning or arguing (talking, commenting) about these subjects.

Luckily I'm here to win hearts, not arguments or debates, so I don't have to explain again in more detail why your way of responding to my commentary isn't really much of a response. You're just using the same routine as the one who tried to get me to talk about the so-called "modern evolutionary synthesis" when it's my thread and I already specified the topic being evolutionary philosophies and myths such as "the chemical evolution theory of life" and "the endosymbiont hypothesis", the latter would fall under the category "biological evolution" according to those arguing in favor of this sub-myth (which was brought up by someone else when they were talking about James Shapiro for other reasons* but is an appropiate example of such an unverified philosophy/idea and myth).

*: other reasons than talking about it as if it's a myth or unverified unsupported philosophy/idea

I guess you have the advantage of never having claimed you wanted a "real conversation" with me like Barcs did on the previous page. For those who do want to have a "real conversation", here's a tip, when one asks another person questions and they answer one or more of them (or perhaps respond in a diferent manner that includes an answer or allows an answer to be figured out from the commentary if one really wants to hear another person out and make some effort to understand what they're talking about), it may be beneficial that one returns the courtesy af answering at least 1 of the other person's questions all throughout a thread. Such as these ones:


Are you willing to acknowledge that life is (or living organisms are) made up of interdependent cofunctional machinery and systems of machinery (technology) responsible for the preservation and reproduction of life?

Are you willing to acknowledge that that is a fact or factual/true/correct, without error/accurate description of a reality? Or perhaps part of it?


Also note that the following:

"There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life."

Is a quotation from wikipedia, it is NOT the point I was making and I was talking about how those who are making that point in the manner and context it is done on the wikipedia page for "abiogenesis" (they are not exclusively using this pattern or routine of reasoning and making points) are demonstrating something else. I was making another point in relation to that quotation and the context I found it in, which would make more sense to someone if they would actually go to the wikipedia page and make some effort to see what I'm talking about or at least not respond to something that they wanted to hear me saying cause it's more familiar to them and they know how to respond to a phrase and point like the one from wiki (trained behaviour and way of reasoning, like working of a sales phone script* where you have every standard or expected point or argument listed with a response, the one quoted from wikipedia included).

*: So then that sales phone script would say something like:

no model for the origin of life > evolution and the origin of life are seperate (variant options: evolution doesn't address the origin of life, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, etc.; variants for the word "evolution": "evolutionary theory", "the theory of evolution", "the fact of evolution", "modern evolutionary synthesis", "the change in life", "change" "change over time", etc. and if all other options have been exposed, one may even acknowledge that the term "biological evolution" is also in use if that doesn't expose the warping, conflation and obscuration games being played here)

Btw, I've already seen all variants mentioned above and more on this website, so perhaps I should one day take notes and see if I can decipher some more details about the sales pitch and complete such a summary of that script as I summarized one line of warped reasponing above. Selling evolutionary philosophies and myths and twisted arguments on how to use language and logic honestly and properly. In particular regarding the word "evolution", but let's not forget "fact" or factual/true/certain/absolute/correct, without error either. Or "science/knowledge", "belief", "information", "design(ing)&designer", "machine", "complex", "simple", "analogy", "metaphor", "reality", "human", "animal", "ape", "primate", "apelike", "(scientific) theory". "hypothesis", "philosophy/idea", "life", "living or alive" and on and on the warping of the way people understand language goes.
edit on 14-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Seems like a nice moment to pause on my commentary related to the phrase "if you can't retain you can't evolve" (with the attached meaning for the word "evolve" and "retain" explained in the commentary about it, not specifying it further again), and my reference and link to my comment in another thread about the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis" that isn't even a proper hypothesis as defined by at least one dictionary for scientific terminologies:

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

* No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

I've bolded the other part of the unsupported claims in the myths that is important to consider in relation to what I've said so far about logical requirements for a claim or suggested so-called "plausible" scenario (or "new science") to make sense and be an honest representation of what the evidence is really demonstrating, pointing towards and leads to if one is willing to think things through logically, reasonably and honestly (both in commentary and thinking about it to get to the bottem of the matter).



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Here are the last 2 posts from Whereislogic, with all the useless filler chopped out, in case you wanted to actually see what he's saying without banging your head against wall.

_____________________________________________________________________________

This is my thread and the topic is evolutionary philosophies like chemical evolution, the chemical evolution theory of life, and abiogenesis. You're separating evolution from the origin of life with no logical justification. The endosymbiotic hypothesis technically falls under "biological evolution".

Do you think life is made up of interdependent systems of machinery responsible for the preservation and reproduction of life?

Is that at at least partially accurate?

"There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life,"
-Abiogenesis wiki.

So, there is no model for the origin of life, yet it's separate from evolution. You use terms like "evolutionary theory", "the theory of evolution", "the fact of evolution", "modern evolutionary synthesis", change, and "biological evolution". That is obvious conflation!

Here are more deceptive terms used to dishonestly sell evolution:

Fact, true, certain, absolute, correct, without error, science, knowledge", belief, information, design, designer, machine, complex, simple, analogy, metaphor, reality, human, animal, ape, primate, apelike, scientific theory, hypothesis, philosophy, idea, life, living, alive, etc. They are warping of the way people understand language.

Think about this quote: "If you can't retain you can't evolve."

The endosymbiont hypothesis isn't a proper hypothesis. See below:


In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

* No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”


The logical requirements of a claim are to make sense and to be an honest representation the evidence. This is not.


edit on 3 20 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
So, there is no model for the origin of life, yet it's separate from evolution.

Again, not the point I was making and a point I was disagreeing with. All philosophical naturalists agree that Mother Nature did it somewhow ("not yet fully understood" and "we don't know yet" are the common phrases here). So the generally accepted yet totally unsupported* model for the origin of life amongst these people (including the ones I quoted) is:

'Nature did it', 'Nature found a way'.

But again, I quoted the line from wikipedia for other reasons than agreeing with the point they were making or trying to make that point.

*: see earlier footnote regarding what I consider to be "unsupported" or "supported (by the evidence, proper evidence and proper reasoning on the facts)", the word "proper" in turns relates to effectiveness and the terminology "scientific method" and "inductive reasoning" which I've already discussed at length throughout this thread. Just as I've discussed what I mean with "unsupported" when I'm using it in the type of context it was used above.

And obviously this:

yet it's separate from evolution.

That was never a point I made, I disagreed with that cop-out that I predicted to be presented or thought of by those who agree with your views regarding evolutionary philosophies. If it's called "the chemical evolution theory of life" or just "chemical evolution" that point that I quoted above is just ridiculous.

Perhaps the interesting part in this is that you knew I did not agree or do not go along with seperating evolutionary philosophies such as the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" from other evolutionary philosophies such as the ones present in so-called "biological evolution" a term also used on the page for abiogenesis explaining their connection, not their seperateness. So if you knew all that, why did you twist my words into the point you wanted to make that they are seperate while you're pretending to be presenting my commentary about it as if that was what I was arguing for when I already explained it to be a cop-out excuse to avoid the subject of chemical evolution and the origin of life and seperate them from the other myths so the similarity doesn't become too obvious to people? One of those similarities being:

No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

That counts as much for the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" as it does for "the endosymbiont hypothesis" as it does for the claims that humans and chimpanzees share a common apelike ancestor as it does for the claims that all living organisms share a common prokaryotic bacterial unicellular ancestor that has never been named or identified specifically in the storylines (making it even more impossible to evaluate the myths reasonably, they might as well be talking about the flying spaghetti monster or pink unicorn, there's as much evidence for the existence of those as this mysterious ancestor that nobody is willing to identify specifically, just like our common apelike ancestor with chimpanzees isn't identified specifically). In phylogenetic or evolutonary trees, common ancestors should be filled in at the junction points, you will see no name at the junction point in images of these trees, but a junction point is drawn anyway. Often, all you see in these pictures is a name at the end of all the lines, no experimental evidence for the lines or junction points drawn in, only badly twisted and misrepresented but persuasive arguments as so-called "evidence". Sometimes they'll mix in some hereditary lines of species that have been sufficiently demonstrated to be related to one another through heridity (recent species of dogs for example), just to beef up the phylogenetic or evolutionary tree and make it look like the evidence for the other lines and junction points they draw in is just as rock-solid. Sometimes in those kind of trees they just start in the middle with dogs for example, and won't say much where dogs themselves came from. Obviously you can't always show everything in 1 tree, so there is a logical justification for doing this.

Notice the questionmarks in the evolutionary tree depicted in the video below, those are the type of junction points I'm talking about (containing only a generic name such as "primates", not specific which kind of primates, or "prokaryotic bacteria", of which there are many kinds today), just remember that similar trees are often drawn in phylogenetic trees sideways (just a portion of the complete tree) or circular. The circular depiction ofen has very tiny junction points that you can hardly notice if you don't understand what's important to think about when presented with such a picture of a so-called "phylogenetic tree". If it helps you can swap out his usage at the start of the term "evolution" with my usage of the term "evolutionary philosophies" (which includes the philosophies and myths that are discussed under the subjects or labels: "cosmic evolution, chemical evolution" and "biological evolution", some of which I've given examples of such as the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis" that falls under "biological evolution"):

edit on 23-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic


...I disagreed with that cop-out that I 'predicted' to be presented or thought of by those who agree with your views regarding evolutionary philosophies. If it's called "the chemical evolution theory of life" or just "chemical evolution" that point that I quoted above is just ridiculous.

Here in the OP is the first time I already responded to the argument or point that "(a model for) the origin of life" is "separate from evolution." Perhaps 'predicted' wasn't quite the right word to describe what I was thinking about: 'responded to in advance and in expectation of that point/argument'. But as you can see, that would have made my sentence a lot more complicated to construct.

And if promoters of evolutionary philosophies are using the word "evolution" to refer to or in stories about the subjects he spoke about at the end of the video when defining the word "evolution", then any objection of him doing that as well when responding to these evolutionary philosophies is irrational and unreasonable. In some cases even deliberately deceptive and an attempt to start a useless debate about something that should be obvious to anyone willing to be honest and reasonable about it.

That's including the subject of using the word "evolution" in the false story/myth and unverified unsupported philosophy called "the chemical evolution theory of life" or simply "chemical evolution". Just listen to his definition, he addresses that part of evolutionary philosophies quite nicely in his definition for the word "evolution". There's really no logical justification to object to that and claim the contrary with the illogical unreasonable claim and argument/point:

"the origin of life" is "separate from evolution."

As was done by both Noinden and Barcs on this page both in their own way and the latter even giving the impression that that was the point I was making (or maybe even wikipedia?).
edit on 23-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join