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: 36
30
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Come now. That is being obtuse. Can you prove what you say, via peer reviewed sources? OR are you pulling this from a bunch of faith based feels?




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

No answer is an answer. You confirmed what we all knew - you have no evidence, only an opinion. An opinion based on an opinion.

As I always said, people like you disappear into the aether. But just like Cooperton, you'll show up again with more "opinions" and more garbage. Just remember we'll be here to respond.

Wonderful, perhaps someone can then respond one day to the following question concerning the Law of Recurrent Variation as I discussed a couple of times linking the related paper from Dr. Lönnig, because so far I've not gotten a direct response to the question itself:

If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

It would be nice to get a response concerning this question that doesn't either start a red herring debate about the word "macroevolution" or the research that Dr. Lönnig has compiled in his paper that shows the facts concerning the Law of Recurrent Variation which is a reality and that therefore it's also a reality that "mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one"; as I discussed that research in detail before. Just to get that out of the way again and to encourage people not to ignore or twist these facts/realities, or talk right past them as if they haven't been established yet because the fact that "mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one" is rather inconvenient for evolutionary philosophies. And to discourage a debate about the word "species" and what can be counted as "an entirely new one" or not. Of course I can't stop anyone from going there to avoid answering the question which is accurately describing the reality of the situation concerning mutations and what they are capable of achieving, therefore an answer is warranted rather than a debate about the facts brought up in the question or pointing to some supposedly "new species" because someone in some paper with evolutionary bias decides to call it that. To see the actual requirements and claims for the evolutionary storyline, see under "Myth 1" after "not only new species but also...":

Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”

However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”

Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observe implied that much bigger changes—which no one has observed—are also possible. (Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, First Edition, 1859, Sixth Edition, 1872, pp. 285-286.) He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life-forms slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth. (Charles Darwin—The Origin of Species, Introduction by Sir Julian Huxley, 1958 for Introduction, First Signet Classic Printing, September 2003, p. 458.)

To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. (*: While the word “species” is used frequently here, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis. There we find the term “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.)

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. (Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.)

The facts. The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mut ation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
edit on 5-2-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Lol what a strawman argument.

How ohh how can a baby turn into an adult within near 2 years. How is this possible!!

Have you put the square in the circle hole yet??

Keep trying digger, theres a trick to it, you'll get it soon.

Coomba98

edit on 5-2-2019 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Although your post is about evolution yet this thread is about abiogenesis....



The one playin the drums 80+ grandaddy was a fruit fly!!

That's evolution for ya.
(Aka, that's how absurd your argument)

It's like you have a ruler where the numbers are all mixed up, and your still gonna claim its 6".

Coomba98
edit on 5-2-2019 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?


This is not true. The evolution of new species is a process. It doesn't occur in a vacuum. I've listened to a few of Dr. Loerring's lectures. I don't think he presents any hard evidence to support his case, hard evidence being data accumulated over a series of experiments that support his opinion. That doesn't mean that his position has absolutely no validity. It's an interesting concept that he proposes. But like everything in science, the evidence has to support that concept.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?


This is not true. The evolution of new species is a process. It doesn't occur in a vacuum. I've listened to a few of Dr. Loerring's lectures. I don't think he presents any hard evidence to support his case, hard evidence being data accumulated over a series of experiments that support his opinion. That doesn't mean that his position has absolutely no validity. It's an interesting concept that he proposes. But like everything in science, the evidence has to support that concept.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?


This is not true. The evolution of new species is a process. It doesn't occur in a vacuum. I've listened to a few of Dr. Loerring's lectures. I don't think he presents any hard evidence to support his case, hard evidence being data accumulated over a series of experiments that support his opinion. That doesn't mean that his position has absolutely no validity. It's an interesting concept that he proposes. But like everything in science, the evidence has to support that concept.



edit on 5-2-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
So that's a 'you can wait till hell freezes over before you get a response to the question that doesn't try to start a red herring debate about or deny, downgrade or downplay the fact the question asks about'. Just deny the facts are certain. Even deny that they are brought up in the article, or deny that the data accumulated regarding 70 years of mutation breeding experiments and 100 years of mutation research supports his conclusions regarding the Law of Recurrent Variation and additional commentary concerning "Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one." Just downgrade the well established facts/realities to a mere "opinion" and then downplay it as if it's not that important for evolutionary storylines that use mutations acted upon by natural selection as a proposed explanation of the origin of all species from "some original, so-called simple life-forms". Which clearly is a wrong explanation for that once you consider the well established facts in mutation breeding and research.

Mutations simply do not have the effect that is attributed to them by evolutionists in their storylines. So mutations acted upon by natural selection also cannot have that effect (see myth 1 regarding mutations, especially the details concerning the effect of producing "not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.")

The reality as evidenced in mutation research and mutation breeding is so inconvenient, apparently the fan of evolutionary storylines must at all cost deny it is a reality/certainty/fact. So one can continue to appeal to arguments from ignorance and wishful thinking that this effect is possible in spite of all the observations that have been made, just appeal to it needing more time (arguing from fantasy, no evidence, conveniently ignoring the commentary from Muller, founder of mutation genetics and winner of the “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine”, who said: “that for the first time he had willfully changed the hereditary material and that evolution could then be speeded up”, i.e. mutation breeding by the method of induced mutations and intelligent selection already simulates evolution over a much longer period of time, not merely the 70 years of mutation breeding). Which also conveniently ignores the following acknowledgement* from evolutionist and geneticist Richard B. Goldschmidt (*: acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth/reality/factuality/certainty/accuracy/correctness of):

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila, in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

I.e. no evidence that this is possible through mutations at all, even if you speed up evolution according to the way Muller described these mutation breeding experiments (making the 'it needs more time'-argument from fantasy a bit of a moot point, and more wishful thinking than mere fantasy). You'd think evolutionists would bother coming up with something better than nothing at all regarding their supposed explanations for the origin of species that involve mutations in the storyline. Come on, you don't even have "the first step in the direction of a new species" (as an effect of mutations), you need something a little better to convince me that this myth as described earlier under "Myth 1" is an actual possibility just as long as you give it more time for the mutations to accumulate, let alone that that's the way it happened. Reminds me of the so-called "Endosymbiont Hypothesis" all over again; and since it's slightly more related to chemical evolution a.k.a. abiogenesis, let's see why having no evidence to back up the claims in the storylines that contradict our observations in nature reminds me of that example.

Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (Question 2)

Your body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells​—bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, to name a few. In fact, there are more than 200 different types of cells in your body.

Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells. How did the cells that make up the human body come into existence?

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

[picture]
Could the more than 200 different kinds of cells that make up your body really form by accident?

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Again, before you start claiming or teaching people that it happened that way (same with mutations acted upon by natural selection supposedly being an explanation for the origin of species), you might want to provide at least some evidence that it's possible in the first place (and then we can talk about whether or not it happened that way), preferrably not something that can be described as "mixing apples with oranges" (either concerning mutations' supposed ability to "produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals" by pointing to an apple to prove something regarding an orange, or endosymbiosis by pointing out feeding habits and calling it endosymbiosis, when no alterations of the kind described in the "Endosymbiont Hypothesis" have been made in either the genome of the organism feeding or the organism being fed upon; I've seen some ridiculous things being used to pretend it's supposedly evidence for the possibility of the Endosymbiont Hypothesis, mixing apples and oranges like that).
edit on 5-2-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Well, I just don't agree. Let's leave it at that.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
Show me one human on Earth today that is not human, in every way. Show me any species that is not the same species as before. I've never seen one, so prove it is true, if you can..


Doesn't make sense. Humans are an entire genus (homo). Did you mean homo sapien? Are you expecting a sudden species change in a single generation? Sorry bud, but that's not how it works. Are you an identical clone of your father? No? Well that's normal. A tiny change. After a million such changes, you could be much more different than your ancestor a million generations ago. Not hard to grasp.



All the evidence is very easy to grasp, yes.

No change. Never.

You can't make a case for change, it's that simple.

'In X years, we'll see all life forms change, ok?'



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
Show me one human on Earth today that is not human, in every way. Show me any species that is not the same species as before. I've never seen one, so prove it is true, if you can..


Doesn't make sense. Humans are an entire genus (homo). Did you mean homo sapien? Are you expecting a sudden species change in a single generation? Sorry bud, but that's not how it works. Are you an identical clone of your father? No? Well that's normal. A tiny change. After a million such changes, you could be much more different than your ancestor a million generations ago. Not hard to grasp.



All the evidence is very easy to grasp, yes.

No change. Never.

You can't make a case for change, it's that simple.

'In X years, we'll see all life forms change, ok?'


Funny, because I literally did make that exact case and you ignored it.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 04:18 AM
link   
If you ever show proof of ANY species changing into another species, I'll be happy to address your posts.

Or, just find anyone on Earth that isn't a human, that will do fine. You have billions of humans to choose from, so it should be easy to pick one that is 'evolving'!!



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you ever show proof of ANY species changing into another species, I'll be happy to address your posts.

Or, just find anyone on Earth that isn't a human, that will do fine. You have billions of humans to choose from, so it should be easy to pick one that is 'evolving'!!


OMG this is the perfect example of someone who does not grasp the basics of evolution.

Sad really. Sad.

Coomba98



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Pssst
Both sides.
Evolution and the existence of a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
Pssst
Both sides.
Evolution and the existence of a higher power are not mutually exclusive ideas.


Agreed, however one has more evidence than the other.... so..... yeah. Ones more likely to be true and the other is based on fantasy.

Coomba98



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

You're comparing apples to oranges.
"Is evolution happening?" is a question we can work at answering.
The existence or not of what we would call a "god" is not.
For various reasons.

Not a fan of logic are you?



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

HarbingerOfShadows,



You're comparing apples to oranges.


Facts (apples) with opinions (oranges) is not a very good analogy. Could say hey its justt like saying Nothing and Something.



"Is evolution happening?" is a question we can work at answering.


Is Gravity happening? Are Cells real? Germs? Where does your mythical 'theory' begin?


The existence or not of what we would call a "god" is not


Umm, I understand the words... but not your meaning.

I is not could not would not from not. Hmm not. Ahhhh. Jigamuka khaaaa.

Mas Coomba9
edit on 10-2-2019 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you ever show proof of ANY species changing into another species, I'll be happy to address your posts.

Or, just find anyone on Earth that isn't a human, that will do fine. You have billions of humans to choose from, so it should be easy to pick one that is 'evolving'!!


I already posted Diane Dodd's experiment. You ignored it completely.

LOL @ asking to find a human that isn't human. Human is an entire genus. Proof of evolution in humans is simple. Map a genome for a parent, then map the genome for the offspring. Bang, you can see the exact genetic mutations from generation to generation. Then you can see bigger differences by looking at the various races. You are seriously stupid enough to think that speciation happens in a single generation??? I don't know why you keep repeating lies when this has been corrected many times.


edit on 2 10 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98


Umm, I understand the words... but not your meaning.


You've made that excessively obvious.

Try again, this time actually think.
Not just rely on the silly bs you've thus far distracted yourself with.

I simply cannot put it any simpler.
Finger painting a picture for you is not possible on this medium.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

And yet your response indicates you understood my words.

Is this opposite day?

Coomba98



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join