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.

 

An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Prezbo369

That is the problem here, the creationist crowed, are not going to admit a conformation bias. They are also biased to assume those who are not pro-creationist are all atheists. Now to be fair the more staunch athiests in these threads assume that all the creationists are Christian, while not a bad assumption, we have had athiest IDers in these threads too. Which makes strange bed fellows for the ID-creationist crowd


Life could still be uniquely created (abiogenetic starts) and also evolve into new forms, which is a probability that's entirely scientifically justifiable.

How could anyone oppose something so simple and rational?


That's merely speculation. We only know that it started at least once. Unless someone can present evidence of multiple life-forming events, then it remains speculative. "Could have" doesn't mean anything without evidence.



And what would the evidence of multiple life-forming events look like?




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

I think you misunderstand the definition of rational their neighbor. Anything which involves the idea of a supernatural being(s) is not rational by the very definition. I say this as someone into the occult
Mind you my spiritual path does not blame the creation of the universe or living creatures on Gods.


Abiogenesis is a chemical process last time I looked.

Abiogenesis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abiogenesis on Rational Wiki

... and for fun:

Abiogenesis on Uncyclopedia



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You would have to demonstrate that there are organisms on this planet that don't conform to common ancestry. The organism's genetic structure (if it had one that was detectable) would be sufficiently unlike anything else on the planet that we could say it was unrelated to any other known life form. For instance, if an organism was identified that utilized nucleotides similar to d5SICS and dNaM (these are artificial nucleotides that don't occur in nature), then we could say that there's at least one organism that must have been formed by a unique event.

However, to date, no organism has been identified that could clearly be labeled as unique and totally unrelated to other life forms on this planet. As explained previously, common ancestry is based on the observation that all life on this planet utilizes the same set of nucleotides to evolve its own life form.

Nature goes through a trial and error process, but there's no reason to believe that it's redunant. That would be thermodynamically inefficient and a waste of energy.

Actually, I take paragraph 2 back to a certain extent - I recall that there is a sea creature that was discovered a few years ago that has a very different genetic structure - doesn't use the same set of nucleotides (I think). I'll see if I can find the article. That could be an example of a new life form from a unique event.



edit on 12-12-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-12-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Of the various proteogenic options. Abiogenesis is one of the hypotheses yes, not the only one. Abiogenesis does not require a deity. SO what is your point?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Of the various proteogenic options. Abiogenesis is one of the hypotheses yes, not the only one. Abiogenesis does not require a deity. SO what is your point?


That's what I would like to know - what's the question? I've asked chr0naut what the real problem was but I've yet to get an answer. Doesn't discuss the replies either. So not sure where we are in the conversation.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I feel this is just a typical attempt to cast doubt on science to be honest. They always zero in on abiogenesis. Its not as if abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution either. BUT they zero in on one of the many hypotheses, and then go "look there is god". It is transparent



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I feel this is just a typical attempt to cast doubt on science to be honest. They always zero in on abiogenesis. Its not as if abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution either. BUT they zero in on one of the many hypotheses, and then go "look there is god". It is transparent


Typically, they come to the end of the line and disappear into the aether - it happens all the time on this board. That said, he seemed interested in the topic. Don't know if chron0naut is a Creationist - I doubt it - but perhaps is attempting to reconcile science and Creationism in some way. Of course, there is no reconciliation as science is evidence-based and Creationism is a fraud.

The hard core Creationists seem to have given up the fight. Rarely see any of them around any more - maybe an epiphany?
Probably not - just ran out of cut and paste options from their websites!
But maybe it's a few stars on our side anyway!
edit on 12-12-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I think they have decided we (the non creationists) are all Shills to be honest.

chro0naut seems to be trying to reconcile his faith with science. More power to him, though someone telling me how chemistry works (or biochemistry) gets tiresome after a time



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Of the various proteogenic options. Abiogenesis is one of the hypotheses yes, not the only one. Abiogenesis does not require a deity. SO what is your point?


My point is that abiogenesis does not require a deity.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I feel this is just a typical attempt to cast doubt on science to be honest. They always zero in on abiogenesis. Its not as if abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution either. BUT they zero in on one of the many hypotheses, and then go "look there is god". It is transparent


You were the one who mentioned God. I was talking about science.

The current state of evolutionary science does not have a solution for a chemical, or natural selection, based reason for codon replacement. Which doesn't mean that there won't be one in the future, there just isn't one now.

One possibility is that 'codon replacement' is indicative of different abiogenetic events, i.e: they are different because they started that way and one did not merge into the other.

I understand how natural selection works. I understand how mutation works. I understand how genetic drift works. I also understand several other factors in biodiversity, population statistics and biological change. I don't see any clear reason, or mechanism, for codon replacement.

edit on 12/12/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

You would have to demonstrate that there are organisms on this planet that don't conform to common ancestry. The organism's genetic structure (if it had one that was detectable) would be sufficiently unlike anything else on the planet that we could say it was unrelated to any other known life form. For instance, if an organism was identified that utilized nucleotides similar to d5SICS and dNaM (these are artificial nucleotides that don't occur in nature), then we could say that there's at least one organism that must have been formed by a unique event.

However, to date, no organism has been identified that could clearly be labeled as unique and totally unrelated to other life forms on this planet. As explained previously, common ancestry is based on the observation that all life on this planet utilizes the same set of nucleotides to evolve its own life form.

Nature goes through a trial and error process, but there's no reason to believe that it's redunant. That would be thermodynamically inefficient and a waste of energy.

Actually, I take paragraph 2 back to a certain extent - I recall that there is a sea creature that was discovered a few years ago that has a very different genetic structure - doesn't use the same set of nucleotides (I think). I'll see if I can find the article. That could be an example of a new life form from a unique event.



So, did the unique sea creature appear from nothingness in its final form, or did it have a different abiogenetic start and evolve from there?

Even a single such oddity disproves the nonsense that abiogenesis can only have happened once. Chemistry is at a level far less complex than biology, if the conditions for abiogenesis happened once on the planet, there's a good chance that it happened multiple times.

edit on 12/12/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

You would have to demonstrate that there are organisms on this planet that don't conform to common ancestry. The organism's genetic structure (if it had one that was detectable) would be sufficiently unlike anything else on the planet that we could say it was unrelated to any other known life form. For instance, if an organism was identified that utilized nucleotides similar to d5SICS and dNaM (these are artificial nucleotides that don't occur in nature), then we could say that there's at least one organism that must have been formed by a unique event.

However, to date, no organism has been identified that could clearly be labeled as unique and totally unrelated to other life forms on this planet. As explained previously, common ancestry is based on the observation that all life on this planet utilizes the same set of nucleotides to evolve its own life form.

Nature goes through a trial and error process, but there's no reason to believe that it's redunant. That would be thermodynamically inefficient and a waste of energy.

Actually, I take paragraph 2 back to a certain extent - I recall that there is a sea creature that was discovered a few years ago that has a very different genetic structure - doesn't use the same set of nucleotides (I think). I'll see if I can find the article. That could be an example of a new life form from a unique event.



So, did the unique sea creature appear from nothingness in its final form, or did it have a different abiogenetic start and evolve from there?

Even a single such oddity disproves the nonsense that abiogenesis can only have happened once. Chemistry is at a level far less complex than biology, if the conditions for abiogenesis happened once on the planet, there's a good chance that it happened multiple times.


A "good chance" isn't good enough. I haven't had time to research the article, but the evidence is the evidence. If it has a different coding profile unlike anything else on this planet, then indeed, it may be something unique.

But it doesn't "disprove" anything until it has been completely analyzed. And even if it was thoroughly analyzed and we understood the reproductive mechanism of the creature, that tells us that there's a possibility of diverse life that doesn't conform to our genetic heritage. There's no doubt that when we travel to other solar systems that the life forms will be very different than ours. Life is probably ubiquitous in this universe. But "probably" isn't good enough until there's evidence.

It's another bit of information that scientists will work on going forward. Unlike Creationists, scientists don't have all the answers. If they did, we would be out of business and Creationists would be relegated to the trash bin of history.

So what is your question?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I feel this is just a typical attempt to cast doubt on science to be honest. They always zero in on abiogenesis. Its not as if abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution either. BUT they zero in on one of the many hypotheses, and then go "look there is god". It is transparent


You were the one who mentioned God. I was talking about science.

The current state of evolutionary science does not have a solution for a chemical, or natural selection, based reason for codon replacement. Which doesn't mean that there won't be one in the future, there just isn't one now.

One possibility is that 'codon replacement' is indicative of different abiogenetic events, i.e: they are different because they started that way and one did not merge into the other.

I understand how natural selection works. I understand how mutation works. I understand how genetic drift works. I also understand several other factors in biodiversity, population statistics and biological change. I don't see any clear reason, or mechanism, for codon replacement.


This is a lot of mumbo jumbo that you picked up off the internet. You don't understand how natural selection works. If you did, you would understand molecular genetics. When you have the opportunity to actually go into a lab and do the hard work, then perhaps you'll understand "codon replacement". Right now, you understand nothing. If you did, you would post references to research that has been done in that area to substantiate your position. I have yet to see you post any link that comes close to the complexity of what you're referring to.

When you can post a flow chart of how it all works - from A to Z - and explain all the details, then someone might listen. But right now, you're doing the copy-paste dance that amounts to nil.

Prove your point or drop it.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

I think they have decided we (the non creationists) are all Shills to be honest.

chro0naut seems to be trying to reconcile his faith with science. More power to him, though someone telling me how chemistry works (or biochemistry) gets tiresome after a time


Here's what's lacking: the hard work. The time in the lab. The time doing research. Studying the reference material. As you well know as a research scientist, the most important thing you do is question your "conclusions". Because others will also question them if you don't substantiate your evidence. The Creationist crowd never steps foot into a lab. No one bothers to prove or disprove anything. Just imagine what would happen if we developed a drug or a product without providing the evidence that it worked? Just throw it out there and let's see what happens - I think the general public would be filing lawsuits every ten minutes.

These folks just don't get it because they don't WORK. They only speculate and expect others to substantiate claims which have already been disproved ad infinitum. Anyone can speculate how many times life initiated on this planet. The fact is, no one will ever know. Even if you validated the theory in the lab, there's no way to verify absolutely that life initiated multiple times in the distant past. If I say yes it did, or I say no it did not - it's meaningless - because it's pure speculation.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Out of curiosity how well versed in science are you? OR do you just quote Wikipedia? Because just because you do not understand something, it does not mean that there is anything different about it. Why are you focusing on a single aspect?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I totally agree. As some one who works in the sciences, I get amused and annoyed with the misunderstandings. As a Pharmaceutical chemist and bioinformatic both areas have vast seas of disinformation against them



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

At what point have I invoked magic?




You mean the theory of evolution by natural selection? The scientific theory that you deny?


You mean the theory that I deny in part?



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369

At what point have I invoked magic?




You mean the theory of evolution by natural selection? The scientific theory that you deny?


You mean the theory that I deny in part?


And when was the last time you were in the lab to be able to "deny" that theory - or any theory for that matter???



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369

At what point have I invoked magic?


You have belief in a supernatural phantasm that intelligently designed life on earth you not?





You mean the theory that I deny in part?


The addition of an infinitely complicated, unnecessary and baseless idea of a supernatural agent means you're no longer talking about the scientific theory...
edit on 13-12-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You invoked God, every time you push creationism, you invoke a supernatural, and thus magical process. QED you invoked magic. You can quibble over it being magical or not, but the essence is, you invoked it.




top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join