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: 30
30
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423


And let me say this about that comment: Because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it will never happen.



Such strong faith you have.

If only you were to address actual empirical science you would realize your entire material-reductionist fairy tale is an obvious misconception. If you knew the depths of biochemical mechanisms you would realize what irreducible complexity is. Biochemical cascades require an abundance of interdependent factors to be in place for it to work. For these reasons abiogenesis, or evolution for that matter, simply could not have happened by ordinary natural means.

Cellular processes are are essentially micro-factories that would humble the best efforts of Henry Ford. Here's an example of a biochemical cascade:





Since all of these proteins are required for the cascade to work, how could they have come to be in a piece-by-piece manner? It is impossible, face it. Or deny science.
edit on 14-1-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Small minds rarely see the future much less be part of innovation. That's why science eludes you. You have no imagination and no willingness to admit that all things are possible given the right circumstances. But science continues to evolve, develop and create that which was never thought possible. Except to you perhaps.



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

the genetic and morphological data shows that there is clear transition from Heidelbergensis to both Neanderthal and Denisovan


Please listen to this appeal to logic. The half-life of DNA in bones is 521 years. This means that in less than 3,674 years, the DNA fragments will be less than 1% of the original DNA left from the organism. So this seems silly that there is substantial genetic data on these samples if they are older than 3,674 years old. The intuitive truth is that these samples are less than 3,674 years old, considering the amount of DNA retrievable from their remains.

"Here we determine an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos"
(Source - Nature 2014)


Do you have a citation for. Heidelbergensis crnial Capacity being 1250 cc?


The source was:
"Homo heidelbergensis - Key physical features". (2017) Australian Museum.


While you do have the half life of DNA correct at 521 years, your math is way off base therefore your conclusion that Heidelbergensis transitional remains at Sima de los Huesos being less than 3,674 years. The corrrect math shows is that DNA becomes unusable at around 6.8 MA. Thus as techniques for extracting and amplification get better, we will be able to close in on the earliest hominids, possibly even the Australopithecines because the DNA does in fact last far longer than you claim.

www.popsci.com...

So sorry, this doesn’t support a literal interpretation of Genesis.



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

While you do have the half life of DNA correct at 521 years, your math is way off base


Considering a half life of 521 years... at 300,000 years old a DNA sample of 3,000,000,000 base pairs would have .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000137 base pairs remaining or 1.37E-164.

If you wish to replicate the math: half-life calculator

So no, there should be no trace of DNA left in a sample hundreds of thousands of years old, let alone millions of years old. Yet surely enough we find DNA in dinosaur bones and "transition fossils" as well. Be objective.
edit on 15-1-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I am being the objective one here. Show me an instance of dinosaur DNA being recovered please. Ironic how you demand admission of error from any other participants in these threads but you either ignore your own blatant errors or double down on them. I stand by my numbers on recovering genetic material. You're formulary doesn't seem to infuse well protected genetic material such as we find in the teeth of archaic hominids, protected by hard enamel. ,



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
The purpose is to say that abiogenesis experiments failed and that we need to look at life on originating from outer space.


LOL! You didn't read any of it. You just quoted cherry picked portions that your religious apologists told you to. The paper does not even come close to concluding that.



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Small minds rarely see the future much less be part of innovation. That's why science eludes you. You have no imagination and no willingness to admit that all things are possible given the right circumstances. But science continues to evolve, develop and create that which was never thought possible. Except to you perhaps.




300 years ago Coop would have been screaming that a combustion engine was completely impossible. 100 years ago he'd be saying that splitting an atom was impossible. 30 years ago he would have been screaming that worldwide instant communications was impossible. He doesn't seem to know the meaning of "impossible."


edit on 1 15 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

While you do have the half life of DNA correct at 521 years, your math is way off base


Considering a half life of 521 years... at 300,000 years old a DNA sample of 3,000,000,000 base pairs would have .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000137 base pairs remaining or 1.37E-164.

If you wish to replicate the math: half-life calculator

So no, there should be no trace of DNA left in a sample hundreds of thousands of years old, let alone millions of years old. Yet surely enough we find DNA in dinosaur bones and "transition fossils" as well. Be objective.


www.newscientist.com...

You constantly misrepresent every single scientific fact you find. It's too funny.


The oldest DNA to date belongs to insects and plants and was found in 450,000 to 800,000-year-old ice. Under subzero conditions, Allentoft and Bunce estimate that DNA’s half-life can be up to 158,000 years, meaning the last remnants would disappear around the 6.8-million-year mark.


The half-life varies depending on the conditions that preserved it. You are just regurgitating nonsense. 521 years is based on just sitting in a bone exposed to the normal environment. Do you really think that something exposed to the air is going to stay preserved as long as something frozen in sub zero temperatures?


edit on 1 15 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
The purpose is to say that abiogenesis experiments failed and that we need to look at life on originating from outer space.


LOL! You didn't read any of it. You just quoted cherry picked portions that your religious apologists told you to. The paper does not even come close to concluding that.
Empty accusations so you can save face and stick to your dogmatic beliefs.

I'll ask you the same thing. Provide me one quote from the article that states that earthly abiogenesis is viable.



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Exactly. And now it's the silence of the lambs - disappear into the aether or change the subject - but never address the real issue or answer questions.



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
Empty accusations so you can save face and stick to your dogmatic beliefs.

I'll ask you the same thing. Provide me one quote from the article that states that earthly abiogenesis is viable.


Why should I do that when the paper you cited did not have any experiments or research involved? Plus there are several supporting experiments that directly show it is viable which I have posted multiple times here. None of them have been refuted by you or Coop. Every time I bring them up they are flat out disregarded and dodged and same "spontaneous generation" straw man is repeated.

I posted the video explaining the abiogenesis experiments multiple times and you completely ignored it, while just repeating your claim about the same paper again, highlighting catch phrases rather than research. If something has supporting testable experiments, it cannot be classified as impossible. It's one thing to say we don't know everything yet or that we don't know if it's true, it's another to suggest something is impossible simply because the entire processes hasn't been duplicated yet and ironically you do not hold god or your religion to the same standards, otherwise you would be calling that "impossible" as well.

I am not the dogmatic one here. I'm not saying intelligent design or the existence of a god is impossible. I'm admitting we don't know such while you and Coop are launching a crusade against a scientific hypothesis and claiming that you KNOW something is not possible, when that's far from the truth. I am merely refuting illogical unfounded arguments.


edit on 1 16 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

While you do have the half life of DNA correct at 521 years, your math is way off base therefore your conclusion that Heidelbergensis transitional remains at Sima de los Huesos being less than 3,674 years. The corrrect math shows is that DNA becomes unusable at around 6.8 MA.


If an organism has 3,200,000,000 base pairs, and the half-life is 521 years, it will take 16,451 years for all the bonds to break down into monomers. In other words, there should not be any sequences of DNA left inside a bone after 16,451 years.

Do your own math here: half-life calculator

Despite this plain and simple empirical fact, they find long DNA sequences in supposed "missing link" hominids, and somehow have the audacity to claim it is 300,000 years old??

"Here we determine an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos"
(Source - Nature 2014)


originally posted by: Barcs
I am merely refuting illogical unfounded arguments.



What supposed illogical arguments have you refuted? You were silent about the titin-myosin-actin interdependence, and the male-female interdependence, the biochemical cascade protein interdependence, and the optic system - neural system interdependence... You really have refuted nothing, you just use generic bio 101 terms and then use condescending slurs against people. I also haven't seen phantom say anything besides insults since he refused to admit he was mistaken regarding the necessity of knowing initial concentrations to determine duration (t) with the half life equation. Peter is the only one out of all of you who actually posts meaningful data in his own words so we can discuss it. You and phantom just post lengthy articles, say a couple insults, and wipe your hands of the situation. For example, in your last post:


originally posted by: Barcs

www.newscientist.com...

You constantly misrepresent every single scientific fact you find. It's too funny.

The half-life varies depending on the conditions that preserved it. You are just regurgitating nonsense. 521 years is based on just sitting in a bone exposed to the normal environment. Do you really think that something exposed to the air is going to stay preserved as long as something frozen in sub zero temperatures?



Which if you would have read my article, or even your OWN article, you would have realized that 521 years is the half-life for DNA inside bone. You tried to refute this by posting an article, which actually agreed with the same number:

"With an estimated burial temperature of 13 °C, the DNA’s half-life was 521 years"

So I don't think you are fit to just dump articles and not mention why they support your assertions. I really haven't seen you post any hard empirical science, or write in a way that shows you understand the points that you or the others are making.
edit on 16-1-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
Empty accusations so you can save face and stick to your dogmatic beliefs.

I'll ask you the same thing. Provide me one quote from the article that states that earthly abiogenesis is viable.


Why should I do that when the paper you cited did not have any experiments or research involved?
It is a peer-reviewed paper that was released, isn't it? Again with the excuses and the constant goal post shifting....


originally posted by: Barcs
Plus there are several supporting experiments that directly show it is viable which I have posted multiple times here. None of them have been refuted by you or Coop. Every time I bring them up they are flat out disregarded and dodged and same "spontaneous generation" straw man is repeated.
Link me one. I didn't read the whole thread, only the pages after I posted, and direct replies to me, because, you know, I have a life.


originally posted by: Barcs
I posted the video explaining the abiogenesis experiments multiple times and you completely ignored it, while just repeating your claim about the same paper again, highlighting catch phrases rather than research.
HA. We're the one with the catch phrases... Uhuh...


originally posted by: Barcs
If something has supporting testable experiments, it cannot be classified as impossible. It's one thing to say we don't know everything yet or that we don't know if it's true, it's another to suggest something is impossible simply because the entire processes hasn't been duplicated yet and ironically you do not hold god or your religion to the same standards, otherwise you would be calling that "impossible" as well.
At this point there is nothing to indicate that it is possible. You should at least be able to admit that. That I can throw a ball 100 feet in the sky doesn't mean that I can throw it to the moon, even if there is evidence of the ball moving in the direction of the moon.


originally posted by: Barcs
I am not the dogmatic one here.
Uhuh...


originally posted by: Barcs
I'm not saying intelligent design or the existence of a god is impossible. I'm admitting we don't know such
First time I've seen you 'admit' that.


originally posted by: Barcs
while you and Coop are launching a crusade against a scientific hypothesis and claiming that you KNOW something is not possible, when that's far from the truth. I am merely refuting illogical unfounded arguments.
We know that there is insufficient evidence for it, and when a paper clearly states it, you dismiss it with an excuse that it has no experiments, completely dismissing all the other papers that DO have experiments that were referenced. It's called evidence of absence.
edit on 17-1-2019 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga




We know that there is insufficient evidence for it, and when a paper clearly states it, you dismiss it with an excuse that it has no experiments, completely dismissing all the other papers that DO have experiments that were referenced. It's called evidence of absence.


The paper NEVER said that - and you clearly ignore all the important points that the paper suggests including the Appendix. You're hellbent on rewriting that paper to suit your agenda. That's why you're an ignoramus with no sense of integrity.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga




We know that there is insufficient evidence for it, and when a paper clearly states it, you dismiss it with an excuse that it has no experiments, completely dismissing all the other papers that DO have experiments that were referenced. It's called evidence of absence.


The paper NEVER said that - and you clearly ignore all the important points that the paper suggests including the Appendix. You're hellbent on rewriting that paper to suit your agenda. That's why you're an ignoramus with no sense of integrity.

Still the same drivel of the appendix that talks about evolution and not abiogenesis.
The paper said that MULTIPLE times. I quoted them all here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga




In other words, abiogenesis is a failure in explaining the origin of life here on earth, and the current evolutionary perspective is also a failure in explaining the emergence of mankind.


And that's exactly why you don't understand how science works. That paper is not the Bible. It's an opinion paper written by several authors. The statement suits your agenda so it's the Bible to YOU and YOU only. There are probably dozens of papers stating the direct opposite. Neither opinion is set in stone. It is only an OPINION with no experimental evidence.
And even with experimental evidence, someone could refute that evidence and come to an entirely different conclusion.

Give it up already - you lost this argument a long time ago.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga




In other words, abiogenesis is a failure in explaining the origin of life here on earth, and the current evolutionary perspective is also a failure in explaining the emergence of mankind.


And that's exactly why you don't understand how science works. That paper is not the Bible. It's an opinion paper written by several authors. The statement suits your agenda so it's the Bible to YOU and YOU only. There are probably dozens of papers stating the direct opposite. Neither opinion is set in stone. It is only an OPINION with no experimental evidence.
And even with experimental evidence, someone could refute that evidence and come to an entirely different conclusion.

Give it up already - you lost this argument a long time ago.


So you don't actually know whether these papers are there or not. You just assume they are there because it suits YOUR agenda. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... And then you dare say I lost the argument a long time ago? Yeah right. Give me a break.

Go find a paper. Then your baseless opinion might have some substance.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Would you like a list????



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Well how many do you want???



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

No offense but this sounds like deflection.

If you have the proof you claim what does it matter how much he wants?
edit on 17-1-2019 by HarbingerOfShadows because: Aliens




top topics



 
30
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join