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.

 

Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

page: 22
30
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
There comes a time when you come to accept that the ignorant ones are actually Padawans, laughing at the time and effort you spend doing your posts.

I say come up with a copy and paste quote linking to earlier discussions and leave it at that.

A passive aggressive approach to trolling the trolls.

Coomba98
edit on 7-12-2018 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1




A quadrillion examples showing millions of species, over recorded history, being the same species.... It is not only evidence against the evolution claim, it is overwhelming proof that evolution is pure nonsense. Evolution supporters simply ignore all of the actual, indisputable evidence, as if it didn't even exist. If they choose to deny all the evidence, or make excuses for not being evidence, at all..then sadly, these people cannot accept the truth. For whatever reasons.


Ok fine. I accept that you believe that statement. However, I and others have posted many papers that refute that statement. No one in the scientific community has ever said that a quadrillion examples of species are all the same species.

In your own words, why don't you define "species" and how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm not being facetious (like I usually am) - I'm serious. I don't understand how you draw your conclusion. I'm not an anthropologist. Peter Vlar is an anthropologist who has posted many interesting and detailed research papers as to how scientists draw their conclusions from the evidence they've accumulated. Scientists follow the scientific method. It's a logical sequence of steps that helps scientists as well as laymen draw a conclusion (BTW, the word "conclusion" does not mean the door is closed to new evidence). I sincerely would like to know how you come to your conclusion that evolution is a bogus science based on nothing.

Once again there are hundreds of journals with thousands of papers on various topics in evolutionary theory. If you're right, then they're all wrong. What's the probability of that being true? Very small I would think. However, as a scientist, I have an open mind to anyone's opinion as long as they can back it up with something, even if it's just their own logic.



They IGNORE the scientific method, in fact.


The quadrillions of different species, which have always remained that exact, same, unique species, have proven it... beyond a doubt.

All of these claims about 'evolution' are nonsense, being supported as if true, over and over again...

The evidence shows that claim is complete nonsense.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   

They IGNORE the scientific method, in fact.


Nuff said, siff this isn't bait to get elaborated in depth responses. Yet not replying with examples just assertions

a reply to: turbonium1

If being a troll gets your nickers wet, then you really have a sorry pathetic life.

If you refute, provide testable examples and not catch phrases to waste other peoples time explaining things to you 'with examples!!'.

Saying their wrong and not backing it up is trolling.

If god did it, prove it!!

(Aka, most who believe in evolution theory are theists. Most Chistians accept it!!)

Master Coomba

edit on 8-12-2018 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   
As I've pointed out many times before...


Once you know the trick, it becomes very simple...


They 'ASSUME' evolution is true, before they even start off, and use it for their own claims, and from there, ir's used again and again...


Every pile of crap is built on all the other crap, which came before it.


The first crap starts it all.


Assuming a fossil is an ancestor of another species, by sharing DNA.

The fact that all living species have DNA in common, prove their claim is - utter nonsense.


Nobody seems to understand that anyone who ignores all the actual evidence, over thousands of years, I would suggest are not worth considering as actual scientists, who seek out all/any evidence, wherever it is, whatever it goes, whatever the outcome, whether it's good, or bad, to know the truth, or if it's not what the scientists wished it to be, or anything at all....


Evidence has no agenda, no excuses, no hatred, no love, or anything to hide... truth exists, forever. A lie doesn't exist, it's a fool that makes it pass as truth for so many centuries, as we know so well, or at least should get a clue.... at this point!


Something is wrong, when people are so upset, so angry, so immediately reacting, to another view...


Nobody pointed to you, or anyone else, and laughed at how stupid, and foolish, you are, to really believe the Earth is a huge ball, zooming through space, while spinning itself at 1000 mph, going around the Sun. Even the stars, which are all several millions of light years away, are all following the Earth, in exactly the same position, and nobody knows it, or sees it, but it's all true. Because of gravity!

There are many different opinions, about many different issues. Someone believes aliens are true, someone else does not.


Nobody seems to get all upset, or trash-talk, anyone who claims that aliens are real, and/or aliens abducted him....not even close, compared to how they mock and insult anyone who claims the Earth is flat, for sure.


Everyone, myself included, played a part in their test.

This test began many years before all of us were in school, even before our parents were in school, as well. Indeed, they first started claiming - to the entire world - that the Earth, our dear planet - was actually a massive, incredible-sized 'ball', and they had proof of the Earth being a huge sphere, which was their scientific proof, which calculated the Earth as a ball. Astronomers have known the Earth was round for many centuries, just as our scientists have confirmed it all, now.

My most vivid memory of grade 2 or 3, in fact, is when my teacher told us about there once was a time, on Earth, which was long, long ago....a time when all the people of Earth believed, and were even convinced, that Earth was - heehee - that it was FLAT, like a pancake! Everyone thought we could even sail over the edge of Earth! As ignorant people, in times of all mythical beasts, etc.


Why would they show small, impressionable children that people were once, long ago, such ignorant, foolish people. It seems hard for anyone of us, today, they were ever that dumb, but this was a time before we had sailed the whole world, as their ancient ships were not nearly capable, back then.


Why would you think they have been lying about this, over the past century, or more? No idea?

If the world was really a sphere, and not round, why did they try to destroy all of their maps? They'd have just one, simple reason, for it.

That's why they can make up another lie - about the people having no ships to sail the whole Earth. If a map of the flat Earth was found, it wouldn't have fooled everyone, like it did. It would be much harder to try and spin all of those maps, that's for sure.


Some people risked their lives to hide those maps, and their bravery saved the long-hidden truth, in their ancient maps.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Thank you for taking the bait.


Your nonsensical wall of text is mearly opinion.

Wheres your evidence?

Master Coomba



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98

They IGNORE the scientific method, in fact.


Nuff said, siff this isn't bait to get elaborated in depth responses. Yet not replying with examples just assertions

a reply to: turbonium1

If being a troll gets your nickers wet, then you really have a sorry pathetic life.

If you refute, provide testable examples and not catch phrases to waste other peoples time explaining things to you 'with examples!!'.

Saying their wrong and not backing it up is trolling.

If god did it, prove it!!

(Aka, most who believe in evolution theory are theists. Most Chistians accept it!!)

Master Coomba


I've already explained it, many times now.


These papers assume something as true, and then, they simply follow along from those previously-held assumptions - which were not at all proven to be true, to begin with.


I've yet to see a paper with any proof, of any species that 'evolved' into another species. None.


So again, show me any specific paper(s), which you believe will prove your claim....



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Your nonsensical wall of text is mearly opinion.

Wheres your evidence?

Master Coomba



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98

They IGNORE the scientific method, in fact.


Nuff said, siff this isn't bait to get elaborated in depth responses. Yet not replying with examples just assertions

a reply to: turbonium1

If being a troll gets your nickers wet, then you really have a sorry pathetic life.

If you refute, provide testable examples and not catch phrases to waste other peoples time explaining things to you 'with examples!!'.

Saying their wrong and not backing it up is trolling.

If god did it, prove it!!

(Aka, most who believe in evolution theory are theists. Most Chistians accept it!!)

Master Coomba


Evolution of all species into other species - is absolute nonsense. That much is known, for sure.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Evolution of all species into other species - is absolute nonsense. That much is known, for sure.


How do you know this??

Sounds like the argument from ignorance.

Sounds like a Padawan.

Master Coomba



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: turbonium1



Evolution of all species into other species - is absolute nonsense. That much is known, for sure.


How do you know this??

Sounds like the argument from ignorance.

Sounds like a Padawan.

Master Coomba


It's quadrillion species that have remained the exact same species, which proves - beyond any doubts - that evolution is complete nonsense.


Ignorance of all the evidence, is all revealed on your side.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

How do you know this, evidence??

Sounds like the argument from ignorance.

Sounds like a Padawan.

Master Coomba



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Each and every day, we observe more and more species which all reproduce that very same species, right?


This has always been the case, each and every day before now, as well...

No records show that any species has changed at all. None.



That's more than enough conclusive proof.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Let me put multiple quotes in here from that same paper I used before...;
www.sciencedirect.com...


At this stage of our scientific understanding we need to place on hold the issue of life's actual biochemical origins - where, when and how may be too difficult to solve on the current evidence. The current paper is focused on the evidence for an all pervasive Cosmic Biology and its effects on the emergence of life on Earth and its further evolution. Certainly all attempts at abiogenesis in the laboratory on Earth have been unsuccessful.



Our additional epistemological argument for reviving these admittedly controversial issues here is this: Wrong theories are simply not fecund. Correct theories however always lead in logical ways to successive confirmatory instances and predict the discovery of novel phenomena in the real world - that is, they do not self-refute themselves by severe experimental and observational tests beyond their immediate explanatory domain.



A facile criticism that is often leveled against the cosmic life theory is that it does not solve the problem of life's origin, but merely transfers it elsewhere (Appendix A). Whilst this may be true in the strictest sense, the importance of knowing whether or not life originated, or could have done so de novo, in the most minuscule of cosmic environments (here on Earth) as against the cosmos as a whole is a scientific question of paramount importance and one that needs to be addressed. The cosmic theory of life that extends the interactive biosphere of all life to encompass a cosmological volume connecting all habitable niches in the Universe has profound ramifications within evolutionary biology itself.



The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015).



Before the extensive sequencing of DNA became available it would have been reasonable to speculate that random copying errors in a gene sequence could, over time, lead to the emergence of new traits, body plans and new physiologies that could explain the whole of evolution. However the data we have reviewed here challenge this point of view.

This was precisely the logic of evolution proposed by the late Sir Fred Hoyle and one of us (NCW) as far back as 1981. It was argued that copying errors of existing genes could not, on the average, produce new genes with functional utility. By analogy with computer programing, it was pointed out that errors generated in copying a computer code would not lead to enhanced or new capabilities but overwhelmingly to degradation of the original program.



“ What does the refereeing procedure really look like? How does it really go on? If, for example, an application was made in the early 60's or late 50's suggesting that the person wanted to investigate the possibility that continents are moving around a little, it would have been ruled out absolutely instantly without questions. That was crack-pot stuff, and had long been thought dead. Wegener, of course, was an absolute crack-pot, and everybody knew that and you wouldn't have any chance.

Six years later you could not get a paper published that doubted continental drift. The herd had swung around - but it was still a firm and arrogant herd.” Check it out at amasci.com...



So with an avalanche of data from diverse fields all pointing to an all pervasive Cosmic Biology implying an origin of life external to Earth, the continuing reluctance of the scientific community to recognise this fact might seem strange. Yet as Tom Gold clearly shows - and we are all aware of this force in our daily lives - “Group Think” and the safety of “Running with the Herd” are powerful driving motivating forces both in science and society (Gold, 1989). These forces are quite irrational (scientifically speaking) yet very powerful socially and culturally.



The requirement now, on the basis of orthodox abiogenic thinking, is that an essentially instantaneous transformation of non-living organic matter to bacterial life occurs, an assumption we consider strains credibility of Earth-bound abiogenesis beyond the limit.



Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site isoform, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change (Liscovitch-Brauer et al., 2017). This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage - a type of sudden “great leap forward”. Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed.



See how many holes evolution theory has? See how unsupported abiogenesis is? You are all always whining for papers, but you never (or rarely) provide any. I just posted a recent paper highlighting all the things I've been saying for years. Let's see how quickly you'll dismiss this one since it doesn't fit your bias. Please do. Prove the article right with your herd behavior. It will help us confirm that your mind works more in religious than scientific ways, despite claiming the contrary.
On the flipside, admitting the article is right would require a fundamental shift in your way of thinking and seeing science and its theories. Are you up for it? I doubt it. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Just know, you no longer have an easy way out. Either path you take, will have a consequence that you don't like. And lastly... Spare me the red herring arguments trying to divert the issue, for example saying that the paper is about something else and that this would somehow make these points irrelevant. It doesn't.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Abiogenesis is a very difficult experiment to perform due to the millions and millions of years and environmental factors required to accurately recreate such an event. This would be an excellent opportunity for quantum computing to simulate a completely natural sequence of events leading to the formation of prokaryotes and eukaryotes on Earth. It would be even more interesting to see such a machine calculate the possibilities of a supreme intelligence fabricating this planet and engineering life as we know it. At least then we would have some kind of compelling evidence.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Each and every day, we observe more and more species which all reproduce that very same species, right?


This has always been the case, each and every day before now, as well...

No records show that any species has changed at all. None.



That's more than enough conclusive proof.




The only conclusive proof you’ve offered is evidence of your own willful ignorance. Nothing more. Sima de los Huesos for example shows both genetic and morphological evidence for transitional morphology between H. Heidelbergensis and Denisovans. Just one of a multitude of examples of transitional Morphologies. To continue to insist that there are no examples is the height of ignorance. I’m just the last 40 Ka we see numerous differences between 21st century Humans and the first humans to enter Europe and encounter Neanderthal and Denisovan. Go back even farther and the differences continue to increase whether you except reality or not.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Great leaps in brain chemistry are from apes eating plants i think, and as far as primordial soup goes and inconsistences i can think of one thing that explains it all and it in itself is still a mystery to us, it's called consciousness and has likely been here longer than we have had brains to house it, cave dwelling fish with no eyes grow eyes when first introduced to light, evolution observed.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ManyMasks

Have you heard of The Stoned Ape theory?

Check it out its interesting.

Coomba98



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolution involves a hard-wire change to the genetic code, so you saying earlier that epigenetics is part of evolution indicates that at one point you thought epigenetics did involve hard-wire changes to the genetic code. There's nothing wrong with learning something from other people... or being wrong, as long as you admit it. I admit when I'm wrong. I can go find plenty of examples throughout these forums of me doing so.


Again, where do you think the ability to turn genes on or off came from? You guessed it, genetic mutations. Also epigenetic changes are part of survival, hence part of evolution. You are the one that claimed code was altered, when that's not even close to the case. At least you admitted you were wrong about that. To say that gene expression has nothing to do with evolution is laughable. Hopefully you can admit your error in this case as well.

And again, you have still failed to argue why epigenetics presents a problem for evolution (or abiogenesis the actual topic). You keep bringing it up, but then it goes absolutely nowhere because you don't explain the conflict. It's a survival mechanism that some organisms have evolved. It goes along with evolution, I don't see the problem. Please break it down.



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
They IGNORE the scientific method, in fact.

The quadrillions of different species, which have always remained that exact, same, unique species, have proven it... beyond a doubt.

All of these claims about 'evolution' are nonsense, being supported as if true, over and over again...

The evidence shows that claim is complete nonsense.


Wrong. All of those species have changed and are different from the originals. Natural selection is a factor so your claim is bogus. Change isn't required. Many species experience mostly genetic drift (ie crocodiles, white sharks). This shows your ignorance of evolution, not a problem with the theory. Remember, changes only stick if they are agreeable with the environment and passed down.

edit on 12 8 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Again, where do you think the ability to turn genes on or off came from? You guessed it, genetic mutations.


Ahh yes, it exists, therefore evolution must have done it. But let's analyze how 'evolution did it'.

Epigenetics work on already existent genes, and genes require epigenetics for their proper expression. Which came first then, the gene, or the epigenetic modification of the gene? Both are necessary for proper functioning. I know you have no answer except "evolution did it".

Somehow, evolution the great god, managed to synchronize proteins to properly modulate the degree of transcription and translation of a gene before the gene even existed!

Your guy's faith is astounding.

The much more logical answer is that all functions that are necessary for a gene and its modulation were all created at once in an organized blueprint.







 
30
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join