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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon


Said people were clueless in comparison to modern people... Theres no reason to believe what they wrote could possibly refer to what we know of things now



Can you identify the north star? Do you know how to grow sufficient food for your self and your family? Can you trace your genealogy back thousands of years? Have you orally memorized codes of morality? Can you identify edible plants in the wild? Can you empathize for other cultures?

The cultural chauvinism that you are demonstrating may be the worst aspect of any culture, and is the precedence to elitism, imperialism, and genocide.


all simple things that primitive peoples could easily do... not just the people of your book...

And its not cultural chauvinism... its modern technology VS bronze age thinking

One wouldn't expect them to know of things like bacteria, or viruses obviously... They had no idea that there was other planets and galaxies out there... they knew what they saw.


Yeah, none of them had digital watches like we do today.





posted on Sep, 11 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Although I doubt that Haleys book is itself inerrant, perhaps you should provide some support for your statements. Otherwise I might suggest your statements are baseless hyperbole.


It was a good number of years ago, and ended with said minister being rather upset with me on a number of issues... they do hate to be proven wrong... In any case im not about to dig through the book again, so lets just leave it at that


Except that the answers are actually there and contrary to the accepted 'knowledge' we assume that they had at the time.

For instance there are several mentions of the heavens being rolled or folded up. At the time, the concept of deformable space-time was anathema, yet there it is several times in the Bible.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says specifically that the Moon generates its own light?


Im sure you know the passage im referring to...

And again IF you want to consider the heavens as space and time, you're free to... clearly they weren't speaking of that but like I said... IF one chooses to read into what is said... you can find just about anything



Yeah, none of them had digital watches like we do today.


Well... im sure they had ways of finding such information handed down through generations... "Don't eat the red berries"... that star is the only stationary star in the sky... etc etc...




posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
If you don't actually know one way or the other, why would the 'sciency' sounding one have any more validity that the theist one? Surely if one side did have better likelihood, the argument would be won? Since it isn't, they must have equal weight from your perspective.


I already said your misunderstanding of a random universe does have equal weight to the theistic argument.
I'm glad we can agree on something.



Your opponent would realize the game is rigged and would refuse to play.


What opponent? I'm just pointing out an example of something that we assume is random which isn't. It's just that we don't have the ability to calculate all the factors in the throw of the dice like wind resistance, spin, force etc. etc.



Yes but one argument only requires a single McGuffin.


I guess this is my turn to misunderstand your point.
The advantage of the "sciencey" answer is that it doesn't need a McGuffin, we've got the greatest cop out answer of "I don't know".



Perhaps you only think your team is better because they are cheating and you don't realize it?


That's possible, however like I said my cognitive dissonance would keep me from realising it.
That was the point.

I'm glad we could agree on so much, even if you didn't realise it.



posted on Sep, 12 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Even though the OP has copy and pasted some anatomy pictures, it is very clear that he does not really grasp what he is talking about.


What biology did I get wrong in my analysis on the gene-to-protein process? What did I not grasp? Suggest corrections and we will go from there, but I don't expect you to actually be able to defend the things you say.
Your Op is full of assumptions and incorrect information. I don’t have eight years to teach you about biology or chemistry so, you’re are on your own. Just know that this mess of a thread will probably be saved for later generations so they will know how stupid and unreasonable some people actually were back in 2018.



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




they will know how stupid and unreasonable some people actually were back in 2018.

Oh you don't even know, in thousand years people will look back and be in disbelief of the thinking on this topic in the 21st century. There is a group of people alive right now that are going to have to try their very best to explain it to them.

In fact state an answer that can be quoted for them as to why, "coles notes" version please.

Thanks


I imagine some could react like "Bones" in this scene, incomprehensible as to why.

edit on 13-9-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: TREESNAKE1111

Data is not information. It only becomes information when structured by humans. It is a deep concept, but one that considers if humans create all information, then we are the creators of the conceptualization of the universe.


I disagree . The data/information carried by the DNA is neccessary to instruct any function . Without this data/information, the DNA strand would just be a dead string of molecules stuck together.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Your Op is full of incorrect information.


You are arbitrarily insulting my intelligence because you have no rebuttal. Can you name one aspect of biology that I got incorrect in the OP?
edit on 14-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 02:46 AM
link   
When millions of different species are the exact same species over 10,000 years, that's overwhelming proof that no species has ever 'evolved' from a different species.

Maybe this 'theory' is still supported because they refuse to accept the truth.


A truth is not hiding in absurd, worthless theories. It's pathetic.


The evidence shows humans were always humans. But, hey, if you prefer to believe your ancient grandpappy was a half-witted ape, despite no proof for you ever having an ape-family ancestry tree, then please, go right ahead!

I'm not one to scorn your unending faith in swarthy baboons as your cousins!



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 03:10 AM
link   


This fly eats the larvae of another species. It evolved images of that species in its wings so it can camouflage itself in with them, unsuspected, while it feeds.

There are past versions of this fly that does not have the images of the insects. So, how did they get there?



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I've experienced things that showed a physical existence is only a part of our whole, greater, existence.

A few years ago, my mom was ill. She slept almost all day, and all night.

Later, she'd tell me about seeing her family, and how real it seemed to be.


Her cousin died one day, while mom was ill. She didn't know her cousin had just died.

A day or so later, my mom said she was looking for her cousin in her dream, but couldn't find her. I told her she had just died, and my mom cried.

Somehow, my mom knew that her cousin had died, and was looking for her in her dream.

Her dreams became the reality, over what we all think is 'reality'.


Anyway, these are things we cannot dismiss as imagination, or dreaming. I don't know what it is, but it's clearly beyond what 'life' on Earth holds for us.


And I know that we were NEVER dumb apes, before.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Your Op is full of incorrect information.


You are arbitrarily insulting my intelligence because you have no rebuttal. Can you name one aspect of biology that I got incorrect in the OP?


Your claim that proteins can't be made without dna for one. Then there's the The Miller-Urey Experiment that puts a major flaw in your claims.


This shows amino acid chains created without DNA.

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
And I know that we were NEVER dumb apes, before.


You're delusional.

We are dumb apes now.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
When millions of different species are the exact same species over 10,000 years, that's overwhelming proof that no species has ever 'evolved' from a different species.

Maybe this 'theory' is still supported because they refuse to accept the truth.


A truth is not hiding in absurd, worthless theories. It's pathetic.


The evidence shows humans were always humans. But, hey, if you prefer to believe your ancient grandpappy was a half-witted ape, despite no proof for you ever having an ape-family ancestry tree, then please, go right ahead!

I'm not one to scorn your unending faith in swarthy baboons as your cousins!


I barely know where to start with this. You're either trolling (again) or you are denying the fossil record yet again. I'll go with the former.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

Your claim that proteins can't be made without dna for one...


This shows amino acid chains created without DNA.

www.sciencedaily.com...


I appreciate the mature response that involves actual science. The Rqc2 protein referred to in the study is a polypeptide chain itself, which requires the conventional DNA-->mRNA-->protein creation process discussed in the OP. It is also not solely capable of creating peptide chains, it is, as quoted from them,

" had the potential to add amino acids to stalled proteins "

it was also only capable of adding the amino acids alanine and threonine, which are incapable of making a coherent polypeptide chain on their own. It was an interesting article, but it only demonstrated that a complex protein (made through conventional processes) can at times independently add two types of amino acids to already existent peptide chains.

In other words, this in no way by-passes the biological necessities discussed in the OP
edit on 15-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
When millions of different species are the exact same species over 10,000 years, that's overwhelming proof that no species has ever 'evolved' from a different species.

Maybe this 'theory' is still supported because they refuse to accept the truth.


A truth is not hiding in absurd, worthless theories. It's pathetic.


The evidence shows humans were always humans. But, hey, if you prefer to believe your ancient grandpappy was a half-witted ape, despite no proof for you ever having an ape-family ancestry tree, then please, go right ahead!

I'm not one to scorn your unending faith in swarthy baboons as your cousins!


I barely know where to start with this. You're either trolling (again) or you are denying the fossil record yet again. I'll go with the former.


I'm looking at 10,000 years of evidence which prove there is no case for species changing - 'evolving' - into a different species.

So either you are trolling (again), or you are denying 10,000 years of ACTUAL, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, yet again.

I'll go with the former.


The fossil record is not evidence of species changing into different species. I've explained why it is not, several times already.

Once again, I'll explain it to you...

Your argument is that fossils of extinct species were the actual 'ancestors' of all the millions of species on Earth today.

You base that on two factors - the extinct species have DNA in common with species of today, and the extinct species had physical features similar with species of today.

Both of your factors are completely dismissed by comparing humans with modern apes, or chimpanzees. All three species live today, as they have for over 10,000 years.

All three of these species have very similar DNA, and similar physical features, and they all live today, as distinct, separate, species.

I'm sure you already know that, but I'm pointing it out to you, once again, so you have no excuse for ignoring it anymore.


It's time you addressed these points on the fossil record.....instead of spewing on and on, about how I'm "denying the fossil record".



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: turbonium1
And I know that we were NEVER dumb apes, before.


You're delusional.

We are dumb apes now.


Indeed, there are numerous posts I've seen which would support your argument!



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
When millions of different species are the exact same species over 10,000 years, that's overwhelming proof that no species has ever 'evolved' from a different species.

Maybe this 'theory' is still supported because they refuse to accept the truth.


A truth is not hiding in absurd, worthless theories. It's pathetic.


The evidence shows humans were always humans. But, hey, if you prefer to believe your ancient grandpappy was a half-witted ape, despite no proof for you ever having an ape-family ancestry tree, then please, go right ahead!

I'm not one to scorn your unending faith in swarthy baboons as your cousins!


I barely know where to start with this. You're either trolling (again) or you are denying the fossil record yet again. I'll go with the former.


I'm looking at 10,000 years of evidence which prove there is no case for species changing - 'evolving' - into a different species.

So either you are trolling (again), or you are denying 10,000 years of ACTUAL, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, yet again.

I'll go with the former.


The fossil record is not evidence of species changing into different species. I've explained why it is not, several times already.

Once again, I'll explain it to you...

Your argument is that fossils of extinct species were the actual 'ancestors' of all the millions of species on Earth today.

You base that on two factors - the extinct species have DNA in common with species of today, and the extinct species had physical features similar with species of today.

Both of your factors are completely dismissed by comparing humans with modern apes, or chimpanzees. All three species live today, as they have for over 10,000 years.

All three of these species have very similar DNA, and similar physical features, and they all live today, as distinct, separate, species.

I'm sure you already know that, but I'm pointing it out to you, once again, so you have no excuse for ignoring it anymore.


It's time you addressed these points on the fossil record.....instead of spewing on and on, about how I'm "denying the fossil record".


Dear god, you continue to show your ignorance. Did you pick that date range deliberately? Do you not understand the length of time required for evolution to show marked divergences? 10,000 years isn't long enough for marked changes, although it is long enough for lesser ones, like the ability to digest lactose, which seems to have happened in humans some time in the past 10,000 years. Hell, Neanderthals died out around 39,000 years ago and their existence alone blows what passes for your theory out of the water.
As for chimps, there are currently two species of chimpanzees, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). When did they diverge from each other? About a million years ago. How do we know? DNA and the fossil record.
Your explanations are worthless, because you have no idea the length of time that evolution needs to work, as well as how it actually does work.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
When millions of different species are the exact same species over 10,000 years, that's overwhelming proof that no species has ever 'evolved' from a different species.

Maybe this 'theory' is still supported because they refuse to accept the truth.


A truth is not hiding in absurd, worthless theories. It's pathetic.


The evidence shows humans were always humans. But, hey, if you prefer to believe your ancient grandpappy was a half-witted ape, despite no proof for you ever having an ape-family ancestry tree, then please, go right ahead!

I'm not one to scorn your unending faith in swarthy baboons as your cousins!


I barely know where to start with this. You're either trolling (again) or you are denying the fossil record yet again. I'll go with the former.


I'm looking at 10,000 years of evidence which prove there is no case for species changing - 'evolving' - into a different species.

So either you are trolling (again), or you are denying 10,000 years of ACTUAL, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, yet again.

I'll go with the former.


The fossil record is not evidence of species changing into different species. I've explained why it is not, several times already.

Once again, I'll explain it to you...

Your argument is that fossils of extinct species were the actual 'ancestors' of all the millions of species on Earth today.

You base that on two factors - the extinct species have DNA in common with species of today, and the extinct species had physical features similar with species of today.

Both of your factors are completely dismissed by comparing humans with modern apes, or chimpanzees. All three species live today, as they have for over 10,000 years.

All three of these species have very similar DNA, and similar physical features, and they all live today, as distinct, separate, species.

I'm sure you already know that, but I'm pointing it out to you, once again, so you have no excuse for ignoring it anymore.


It's time you addressed these points on the fossil record.....instead of spewing on and on, about how I'm "denying the fossil record".


Dear god, you continue to show your ignorance. Did you pick that date range deliberately? Do you not understand the length of time required for evolution to show marked divergences? 10,000 years isn't long enough for marked changes, although it is long enough for lesser ones, like the ability to digest lactose, which seems to have happened in humans some time in the past 10,000 years. Hell, Neanderthals died out around 39,000 years ago and their existence alone blows what passes for your theory out of the water.
As for chimps, there are currently two species of chimpanzees, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). When did they diverge from each other? About a million years ago. How do we know? DNA and the fossil record.
Your explanations are worthless, because you have no idea the length of time that evolution needs to work, as well as how it actually does work.


That's like saying flying pink elephants existed millions of years ago, and changed into modern elephants 20,000 years ago, it's a long, gradual process! Look at this fossil, of a flying pink elephant, with a fragment of a wing, found nearby!

Humans are not evolving into a lactose intolerant species, that's utterly absurd.

I like to eat cheese, same as my dad, and his dad, liked to eat cheese. My friend's baby LOVES to eat cheese.

What a joke!



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
When millions of different species are the exact same species over 10,000 years, that's overwhelming proof that no species has ever 'evolved' from a different species.

Maybe this 'theory' is still supported because they refuse to accept the truth.


A truth is not hiding in absurd, worthless theories. It's pathetic.


The evidence shows humans were always humans. But, hey, if you prefer to believe your ancient grandpappy was a half-witted ape, despite no proof for you ever having an ape-family ancestry tree, then please, go right ahead!

I'm not one to scorn your unending faith in swarthy baboons as your cousins!


I barely know where to start with this. You're either trolling (again) or you are denying the fossil record yet again. I'll go with the former.


I'm looking at 10,000 years of evidence which prove there is no case for species changing - 'evolving' - into a different species.

So either you are trolling (again), or you are denying 10,000 years of ACTUAL, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, yet again.

I'll go with the former.


The fossil record is not evidence of species changing into different species. I've explained why it is not, several times already.

Once again, I'll explain it to you...

Your argument is that fossils of extinct species were the actual 'ancestors' of all the millions of species on Earth today.

You base that on two factors - the extinct species have DNA in common with species of today, and the extinct species had physical features similar with species of today.

Both of your factors are completely dismissed by comparing humans with modern apes, or chimpanzees. All three species live today, as they have for over 10,000 years.

All three of these species have very similar DNA, and similar physical features, and they all live today, as distinct, separate, species.

I'm sure you already know that, but I'm pointing it out to you, once again, so you have no excuse for ignoring it anymore.


It's time you addressed these points on the fossil record.....instead of spewing on and on, about how I'm "denying the fossil record".


Dear god, you continue to show your ignorance. Did you pick that date range deliberately? Do you not understand the length of time required for evolution to show marked divergences? 10,000 years isn't long enough for marked changes, although it is long enough for lesser ones, like the ability to digest lactose, which seems to have happened in humans some time in the past 10,000 years. Hell, Neanderthals died out around 39,000 years ago and their existence alone blows what passes for your theory out of the water.
As for chimps, there are currently two species of chimpanzees, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). When did they diverge from each other? About a million years ago. How do we know? DNA and the fossil record.
Your explanations are worthless, because you have no idea the length of time that evolution needs to work, as well as how it actually does work.


That's like saying flying pink elephants existed millions of years ago, and changed into modern elephants 20,000 years ago, it's a long, gradual process! Look at this fossil, of a flying pink elephant, with a fragment of a wing, found nearby!

Humans are not evolving into a lactose intolerant species, that's utterly absurd.

I like to eat cheese, same as my dad, and his dad, liked to eat cheese. My friend's baby LOVES to eat cheese.

What a joke!


(Facepalm)

I think that your reading skills are massively lacking. I said that the ability to digest lactose is a relatively recent mutation on the part of mankind, certainly within the past 10,000 years, since mankind started to farm. I never said that we are evolving into a lactose intolerant species, I said the opposite.



posted on Sep, 16 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
the ability to digest lactose, which seems to have happened in humans some time in the past 10,000 years.


This is an absurd postulate. All humans have had, and always will have, the lactase gene, otherwise infants would not have been able to drink their mother's milk during development.

Have you considered that you are the one that "continues to show your ignorance"?
edit on 16-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join