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.

 

evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

page: 16
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Murgatroid

So education is mind control is it? You of course can demonstrate that? Education allows you to think for yourself. If you are willing to learn about critical thinking. Which is taught in many schools today. So why do you find this threatening?


It's funny, Stalin educated his people how great Stalinism was
Noindy, you have no idea do you




posted on May, 20 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Non sequitur is a non sequitur Raggy. Its pretty clear you also find hte idea of education threatening. You can't talk to the point of critical thinking. You and I have tried to engage (well I have) on points, and you dance back every time. You are the kid in the boxing ring, afraid to take a hit.



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

The stupid thing noindie is you havnt been able to throw anything
I have asked questions, other atheist evolutionists have readily admitted there are no answers to my questions, that the questions havnt be answered by science, yet.
Then in your ignorance you come up with a stupid answer and claim you are right and the other evolutionists are wrong
You have nothing, you never have

Do you see the question in the op, you havnt answered it, you can't and many others have told me it can't be answered, you lie when you say you answered the question

Maybe one day science will find an answer, but till then

Every time you say you have an answer to this question, you call everyone else who said there is no answer a liar

You havnt got a punch never mind think you can throw a punch


Non sequitur, really
Good education is good
Bad education is bad
Dumb education is infective

Choose carefully

edit on 20-5-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You probably should have those eyes tested neigbour. You suffer from a form of selective vision.

I'm not an atheist and evolutionist is a term only used by creationists.

You asked " What are these facts that inform the theory of evolution " the rest of your post was creationist drivel.

I have in this thread an in others posted evidence .You never talk to that.

As I said, you refuse to take a punch, to your dearly held convictions. Rather you smack talk.

So go read replies, from atheists and non atheists such as myself.

QED



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Fact is he doesn't want answers in this or any other thread he makes...

Hes here to mock those that actually understand a bit of science

His best answers are "thats dumb" or just toss insults around... mainly because he doesn't understand anything about science

Thats what home schooling will do for you

This is the only problem with a free forum... stupidity is allowed to run wild because its still an opinion


edit on 20-5-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

You forgot the use of inane, that phrase gets thrown around a lot.

These threads will always have someone who can't keep up. Sadly a lot of these threads are started by someone who refuses to keep up.

Again for this thread, a search of google scholar, will provide 100s of papers about evidence for evolution.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman
I'm not an atheist and evolutionist is a term only used by creationists.

The word "evolutionists" as found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI website) databases of published articles. Evolutionists referring to themselves and eachother as "evolutionists", almost a 1000 results.

Since I think I've linked it before when you were around in a thread I take it you'll continue to ignore it and make that false claim about who supposedly ("only") uses the term "evolutionist". It's not very conducive for your credibility.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

Again for this thread, a search of google scholar, will provide 100s of papers about evidence for evolution.

And a search for "evolutionists" on google scholar (checking the "articles" box, which is standard) results in 34,700 results for me.
edit on 22-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears
The article you used conveniently circumnavigates the real issues with these type of experiments when considering them in light of the storylines involving abiogenesis a.k.a. chemical evolution.

Appendix A

Teamwork for Life

...[I've addressed this under the heading "interdependency" or "interdependent machinery" before in this thread, so I'll skip it now]

Appendix B

From “the RNA World” or Another World?


In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains.

Source: From “the RNA World” or Another World?
edit on 22-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic



Another Theory Squashed

A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

The same counts for RNA (and DNA, but I assume the Times covered that with the phrase "more complex molecules carrying the genetic code"). That's why I asked before regarding xenogears' proposed RNA World storyline, what happens if you do these experiments in an oceanic environment (or near hydrothermal vents in relation to rnaa's video, which incorporates the hydrothermal vent part of the storyline at some point after referencing Zsostak's glorified soap bubbles that he calls "protocells", which won't do the trick of preventing hydrolysis for very long in such a hydrothermal vent environment).

Source: Watching the World

It's all rather dishonest to leave out the topic of hydrolysis in any RNA World storyline (xenogears) or hydrothermal vent storyline (rnaa) while one's basic education in chemistry (Noinden, Zsostak, cdk007, those who published their intelligently guided experiments with RNA enzymes that xenogears referenced) should have taught one the basics about hydrolysis (raising the question why I have to bring it up rather than Noinden or any of the others with that education giving a heads up to xenogears and rnaa about it; that's what you get with bandwagon behaviour). Time to start thinking about the origin of proper cell membranes to preserve and protect whatever starting material you're using in the storyline, rather than invoking Jack Zsostak's glorified soap bubbles who won't last long (enough) either in those prebiotic oceanic scenarios (nor will they accomplish what needs to be accomplished in terms of preservation until the next generation in those storylines). It's chemistry 101, even young earth creationists get it:

edit on 22-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Oh look a video, that must be irrefutable proof of.... I don't know hobbits? It certainly is not proof of what you think it is. WHEN you and other creationists use "evolutionist" you use it as if it is a belief system, not a scientist who studies evolution. So no nice try. But if you and your cabal of Luddites were applying it in the proper manner, it would not be a point I would raise.

You read how many of those articles? Perhaps like some of us, you might even be in some of them as an author?



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

This video is so ridiculous it's amazing that even YOU can't figure it out. If proteins cannot form in large amounts of water, why do we have fish, mammals and plant life in the oceans?????



It's a serious disease to be that dense. The guy should see a psychiatrist and get some pills.



posted on May, 22 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Or maybe a grade 8 education?




posted on May, 23 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The following video is what Raggs and Co are implying.

At 45 seconds the uneducated ones talk about gravity never being proven!!!!!!!



Their so uneducated that they do not understand the evidence of the theory of gravity has been confirmed to be 99%+ correct. It only breaks down at the quantum level which has a different set of applied physics.

Aka, Einstein's freakin theory of relativity which is in essence the currently accepted theory of gravity.

This asinine quest to prove evolution wrong is in the same field as the Flat Earther's who say that we dont understand gravity!!!

But then Raggs is a great example of the education one gets when homeschooled!

Coomba98



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
Please stop predictably trying to change your original claim from "evolutionist is a term only used by creationists" to 'you and other creationists are using it incorrectly' (which you've done before) because you know it's a lie and your only intention is to compound lie upon lie to make readers here forget about your original lie, false accusation upon false accusation, using psychological projection and pot calling the kettle black and endless amounts of negative slanderous paintjobs that are often more applicable to you and/or your gurus. Incl. all the basic propaganda techniques discussed in the article in my signature (as if it's demonstration-time). And to make them forget that I've already demonstrated that the claim: "evolutionist is a term only used by creationists", is false. All I need to do to demonstrate that is to show the articles in which these people refer to themselves and eachother as "evolutionist(s)" (audio would be sufficient as well). Which is what I've done but you'll just refuse to acknowledge that that statement isn't true and you'll continue to use it in spite of the truth of the matter. When called on it you just conveniently switch to another claim, perhaps in the hopes I'll debate that partially false claim instead (since that one depends on and differs per person who uses the word "evolutionist"). The first claim you made is a lot more easier to refute than the 2nd one (because the 2nd one differs per person), that's why you switch and pretend it's part of the same claim.

Are you going for the dishonesty-award on ATS? You'll have some stiff competition with the silent agree-ers here who continue to remain silent about your lies/falsehoods. Don't you have anything better to do?

It's ridiculous to suggest that it's OK for evolutionists to refer to themselves and eachother as evolutionists in laughable self-confirming so-called "peer reviewed" articles, but oh boy when someone does it who doesn't agree with these people who refer to themselves as evolutionists, then that person automatically isn't using the word right. It looks on purpose, no intention of being reasonable about this and the related subjects. And the silent agreement of others says enough about the purpose or uselessness of trying to have a discussion about it on ATS. Still haven't gotten any rational answers to my questions about the 'Chromosome #2 fusion'-storyline I asked years ago and neither will I get any serious answers to any of my questions I've raised since then on this subforum.

More deflection with compounding lies, one day, I'd like to be surprised by ATS users. This is just too boring and it feels too much like responding to trolling attempts.
edit on 24-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic



Another Theory Squashed

A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

The same counts for RNA (and DNA, but I assume the Times covered that with the phrase "more complex molecules carrying the genetic code"). That's why I asked before regarding xenogears' proposed RNA World storyline, what happens if you do these experiments in an oceanic environment (or near hydrothermal vents in relation to rnaa's video, which incorporates the hydrothermal vent part of the storyline at some point after referencing Zsostak's glorified soap bubbles that he calls "protocells", which won't do the trick of preventing hydrolysis for very long in such a hydrothermal vent environment).

Source: Watching the World

It's all rather dishonest to leave out the topic of hydrolysis in any RNA World storyline (xenogears) or hydrothermal vent storyline (rnaa) while one's basic education in chemistry (Noinden, Zsostak, cdk007, those who published their intelligently guided experiments with RNA enzymes that xenogears referenced) should have taught one the basics about hydrolysis (raising the question why I have to bring it up rather than Noinden or any of the others with that education giving a heads up to xenogears and rnaa about it; that's what you get with bandwagon behaviour). Time to start thinking about the origin of proper cell membranes to preserve and protect whatever starting material you're using in the storyline, rather than invoking Jack Zsostak's glorified soap bubbles who won't last long (enough) either in those prebiotic oceanic scenarios (nor will they accomplish what needs to be accomplished in terms of preservation until the next generation in those storylines). It's chemistry 101, even young earth creationists get it:



So do you actually have a citation demonstrating your claims about Dr. Bada’s Statements and thoughts on life beginning at or near hydrothermal vents? Or are you as usual, quote mining without demonstrating proper context? I find it really odd that someone of your intellectual magnitude would make such bold claims based on research done more than 20 years ago and is clearly not the most up to date data on the topic. Especially when AFTER this alleged research took place.

Perhaps the significance is lost on you, but Dr. Bada’s PhD Advisor was Stanley Miller of the famed Miller-Urey experiments. Their joint research has led Dr. Bada into working with NASA as one of the worlds formost experts in Exo- Biology. But before I get too far off track... Miller had a stroke in 1999 and passed away in 2007. Dr. Miller didn’t work after his stroke so any research he participated in was done before 1999. If you’re having trouble with the math, his last research with Bada took place at meastn29 years ago.

A most interesting side note is that after Miller’s stroke, all of his research and materials related to the Miller-Urey experiments were donated. When examining some previously unknown vials of material from the original batch of tests regarding Abiogenesis that Miller and Urey ran from 1952- 1958. When Bada examined the material with newer and more precise instrumentation, he found that it was from unpublished work from ‘52-53 and ‘58. The 1952 samples showed the existence of 22 amino acids and 5 amines showing definitively that the original research produced MORE compounds than were originally recorded. glycine, α- and β-alanine, with uncertain aspartic acid and GABA. In addition Bada also analysed the unreported 1958 samples in 2011, from which 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur
compounds, were detected. This is well in excess of the stable amino acids and organic compounds generated and recorded in the original research.


Let’s recap shall we? You misrepresented someone’s work to support your fear of being wrong regarding how your particular god works, we discovered that the research you claimed PROVES a hypothesis to be incorrect is in fact over 20 years old. If hydrothermal vents were proven not to be a suitable where life could have begun over 2 decades ago,’whynthen does research not the subject continue? It couldn’t be because you’re wrong and haven’t actually supported any of your claims let alone understood the material.

We’ve also learned that the work of the guy you think proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that hydrothermal vents were in no way suitable to assisting in life’s origins actually has evidence supporting the original Miller-Urey experiments as well as showing that the original parameters produced more amino acids and organic compounds than were originally recorded and that later tests in 1958 which used H2S (hydrogen sulfude) as one of the base gasses allowed for life to begin where? Oh yeah:.. hydrothermal vents.

Please... feel free to keep entertaining us with your witty take on the elegance of biochemistry though.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

Read the article completely. It says RNA with cofactors based catalysts are capable of generating some of the energy reactions required to power the system, and it is conceivable they may generate the whole chain of reactions.



In 2003, Hiroaki Suga, now at the University of Tokyo, Japan, created an RNA enzyme that could oxidise alcohol, with help from a cofactor called NAD+ which is used by many protein enzymes (Nature Structural Biology, vol 10, p 713). Months later, Ronald Breaker of Yale University found that a natural RNA enzyme, called glmS, also uses a cofactor. Many bacteria use glmS, says Ferré-D’Amaré, so either it is ancient or RNA enzymes that use cofactors evolve easily. Either way, it looks as if RNA molecules would have been capable of carrying out the range of the reactions needed to produce energy.

So the evidence that there was once an RNA world is growing ever more convincing. Only a few dissenters remain. “The naysayers about the RNA world have lost a lot of ground,” says Donna Blackmond of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California.-newscientist


Saying the OCEAN or hydrothermal vents is misleading. The earth has many environments. The article commented on how in the presence of volcanic clay Long RNA chains spontaneously form if you add activated bases, addressing the origin of initial long rna sequences.

Many of the basic compounds of life have been shown to be manufacturable in interstellar space, providing the basic building blocks.

Now RNA is one possibility, one that shows ability to enzymatically achieve energy reactions as well as replication, and other reactions. But it just shows it is possible, there could've been another similar class of molecules. The idea is that we show proof of concept, that it is possible for such to occur. And such was shown.
edit on 24-5-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

The sad thing Pete is you want to believe, in no way is this evidence, you are just holding onto faith

The science, the hard science is inconclusive
You just step your faith up to the top level, extreme faith

In all that wall of words, nothing I can refute, just faith

There are no facts to inform a theory



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

Scary Coombs, you have a learning disability
I asked for proof of evolution,thats not me tearing it down

Maybe when you learned science (I am guessing by your education home schooled by your grandparents) asking for scientific evidence was corrupting science but not where i came from, searching for evidence is science

Silly, silly, silly boy



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You probably should have those eyes tested neigbour. You suffer from a form of selective vision.

I'm not an atheist and evolutionist is a term only used by creationists.

You asked " What are these facts that inform the theory of evolution " the rest of your post was creationist drivel.

I have in this thread an in others posted evidence .You never talk to that.

As I said, you refuse to take a punch, to your dearly held convictions. Rather you smack talk.

So go read replies, from atheists and non atheists such as myself.

QED


Dear oh dear noindie

You have posted evidence???
Evidently, while many other atheists or evolutionists or gods botheres like yourself, whatever you are and that was never the subject-
Have clearly stated there is none
But oh no, you, the educated elite, knowing more than anyone, reams of evidence 😂



Troll much and often
Delusions of grandeur



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What, are you a 'flat earther' now as well? The other poster was ridiculing that and comparing them with people who believe in creation, you know, going against the overwhelming majority opinion of the scientific world.
I'll tend to listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists over the 'god did it' crew lol



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join