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 easy way to understand evolution...

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
the romans created latin

What created DNA?


DNA most likely came from RNA.


And that's exactly why it's classed as a faith


Not really.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Now, answer this question. If humans just popped into existence like creationism/Id says we did, why do we have viral DNA in our cells? Why is that viral DNA required for placental formation? Shouldn't all our DNA be only human and contain everything we need to exist?

The fact we couldn't exist without the viral DNA shows that at some point in the past our ancestors didn't produce placental live birth. Just one step in the evolutionary process to get here.

Scientific "most likely" is the evidence is pointing this direction but we need a little more to be sure.




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

Sorry are you assuming viral dna was not created when the human was?

Anyway, as you would be well aware

"Wemayowe our survival and complexity to a stowaway virus that springs to life in the very first cells of human embryos"
www.newscientist.com...

"Viral Gene Appears Crucial to Mammalian Reproduction"
www.scientificamerican.com...

"Moreover, a number of lines of indirect evidencehave pointed to a possible role in placental development"
www.pnas.org...


But I just want proof they were not there in the beginning, then you win...

Leave the superstition out of science stormy, please



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: stormson

Sorry are you assuming viral dna was not created when the human was?

Anyway, as you would be well aware

"Wemayowe our survival and complexity to a stowaway virus that springs to life in the very first cells of human embryos"
www.newscientist.com...

"Viral Gene Appears Crucial to Mammalian Reproduction"
www.scientificamerican.com...

"Moreover, a number of lines of indirect evidencehave pointed to a possible role in placental development"
www.pnas.org...


But I just want proof they were not there in the beginning, then you win...

Leave the superstition out of science stormy, please


Superstition is belief in a god with no direct evidence.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

I'm curious.how is this a factoid?




factoids!

did you know that the mitochondria of a cell was once a completely separate organism? see, way back there was an organism that was really good at gathering food source, but couldnt make energy, and there was another organism that was really good at creating energy, but not in gathering the food. one day these two joined. the first cell gathered the food, the second created the energy. a partnership was formed and holds till this day. that is why mitochondrial dna is different from your dna, even though it lives in almost every cell in your body.



sounded more like a fairy tale to me than a factoid.


edit on 5-2-2017 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
sounded more like a fairy tale to me than a factoid.


Yes, some things are hard to believe, when you haven't done the research. You love to blindly dismiss science because you don't like it, but you ignore the elephant in the room that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is much more like a fairy tale, than science. I mean, come on, bro, your propaganda is creating more atheists.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
sounded more like a fairy tale to me than a factoid.


Yes, some things are hard to believe, when you haven't done the research. You love to blindly dismiss science because you don't like it, but you ignore the elephant in the room that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is much more like a fairy tale, than science. I mean, come on, bro, your propaganda is creating more atheists.


To the contrary SCIENCE is a beautiful tool when used properly. It not only confirms my belief but affirms them to be the reality.

For instance do you know that the Universe had a beginning according to the scriptures? Gen 1:1.

Science not only confirms it but affirms it!!

Imagine the shock.

So since you claim to be the SCIENCE EXPERT here, please explain where this factoid is based on/from?




...mitochondria of a cell was once a completely separate organism? see, way back there was an organism that was really good at gathering food source, but couldnt make energy, and there was another organism that was really good at creating energy, but not in gathering the food. one day these two joined. the first cell gathered the food, the second created the energy. a partnership was formed and holds till this day.



Pure Imagination as Willy Wonka sang it or a silly story sprinkled with scientific nomenclatures?



edit on 6-2-2017 by edmc^2 because: added ...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

It's based on DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is separate from nuclear DNA. The mitochondria also has a double envelope which is what happens when something from the outside penetrates the cell.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

It's based on DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is separate from nuclear DNA. The mitochondria also has a double envelope which is what happens when something from the outside penetrates the cell.


The Mitochondrias separate DNA along with the fact that Mitochondrias cell membrane is exactly like that if eukaryotes along with the way Mitochondria reproduce(budding and splitting into 2). Add in the fact that we see a similar process in plants with chloroplasts and there is a fair amount of evidence that indicates that endosymbiosis did in fact occur.

I will admit that it is not 100% proof that this occurred. It is however the best possible explanation for the body of facts currently known. I'm always open minded enough to look at any papers or data that disputes this or provides another answer/explanation, but I'm not seeing it.

With that said, science doesn't actually attempt to provide 100% air tight proof of anything. It's always about providing the best possible answers based on the body of evidence currently known. None of this means that it's rational to throw your hands in the air and proclaim that it's all a fairy tale. The evidence is there. If they disagree with it, provide data that shows current models in error. That never pans out though and we're stuck listening to incredulousness.

For a dumbed down for laymen explanation... evolution.berkeley.edu...



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

It's based on DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is separate from nuclear DNA. The mitochondria also has a double envelope which is what happens when something from the outside penetrates the cell.




What you described above is the scientific part - which I agree.

but what about this story?



way back there was an organism that was really good at gathering food source, but couldnt make energy, and there was another organism that was really good at creating energy, but not in gathering the food. one day these two joined. the first cell gathered the food, the second created the energy. a partnership was formed and holds till this day.


like I said - Pure Imagination or a silly story sprinkled with scientific nomenclatures.


edit on 6-2-2017 by edmc^2 because: re



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not tracking what your asking? You agree that the two where separate at one time and the mitochondria joined with a single cell organism, right?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not tracking what your asking? You agree that the two where separate at one time and the mitochondria joined with a single cell organism, right?


OK - let's break it down:

Where was this story based from?


way back there was an organism that was really good at gathering food source, but couldnt make energy,

edit on 6-2-2017 by
edit on 6-2-2017 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Currently the cell can produce very little energy itself and relies on the mitochondria to produce the energy. The cell is very good at gathering food stuff however. The way the mitochondria is shaped precludes it from gathering food effectively.

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.

The only known organism lacking mitochondria is in the link.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

edit on 6-2-2017 by stormson because: Eta



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

Currently the cell can produce very little energy itself and relies on the mitochondria to produce the energy. The cell is very good at gathering food stuff however. The way the mitochondria is shaped precludes it from gathering food effectively.

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.


This is what I'm trying get at - since there was no scientist present when the first cell or "organism" was created, what made you conclude that..




The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.


??

assumption, wild guess, pure imagination?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Read Peter vlars comment. He broke it down more scientifically than I am.

You even agreed with it.

As for no one seeing it happen, that's silly. I don't have to watch your grandparents mate to know they produced one of your parents. I just need DNA.
edit on 6-2-2017 by stormson because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 6-2-2017 by stormson because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

Currently the cell can produce very little energy itself and relies on the mitochondria to produce the energy. The cell is very good at gathering food stuff however. The way the mitochondria is shaped precludes it from gathering food effectively.

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.


This is what I'm trying get at - since there was no scientist present when the first cell or "organism" was created, what made you conclude that..




The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.


??

assumption, wild guess, pure imagination?





I don't disagree with you that endosymbiosis is as yet a hypothetical scenario and doesn't meet the criteria currently to be considered a Scientific Theory. However, the evidence we do currently have certainly seems to indicate that endosymbiosis did in fact occur. The fact that the mitochondrial cell membrane is like that of the eukaryotes they are thought to have come from. They have a unique DNA separate from that of the host cells within which they live and mitochondria had a similar life cycle and engages in cell division exactly like eukaryotes. Is this 100% proof of an endosymbiotic event? No. Can you or anyone else however provide a scientific explanation that explains how and why mitochondria share so many properties and similarities with eukaryotes? Why it has its own unique DNA? Certainly happy to entertain a rational hypothesis if you can provide one that isn't based on incredulousness and confirmation bias.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
For instance do you know that the Universe had a beginning according to the scriptures? Gen 1:1.

Science not only confirms it but affirms it!!



Completely wrong. We have no clue whether the big bang was the beginning or not. We can only measure back to just after the expansion started. Sorry, but there is no evidence that the universe ever began. We don't know what came prior to BB yet. Maybe one day, but science definitely has not confirmed or affirmed that.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem to (as always) miss that this is an analogy. Analogies are only partly useful. Thus an overly simplified one, will only be of use to those with the least ability in that area.

Evolution is not like a language in all reality. It is an analogy.

What you might wish to consider however is that there was at some point in our evolution a human species which first used language. Thus it did NOT have a precursor.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join