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.

 

Animal that doesn't need oxygen to survive discovered

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Life has too many failings and faults to be created by a perfect designer. Not sure what complex perfection you see in life, there's evolutionary failures all over the place, and no being without # loads of problems, faults and errors. If we were perfect creations of a divinity we wouldn't need doctors, and genetic diseases would be non existent. There's plenty of evidence for our not being created, we're clearly designed poorly if there was one.
edit on 2/27/2020 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: cooperton

No they've determined that due to various current life forms that still exist


Exactly... they are assuming that these current life forms evolved from older ones, which is a false presumption. Your entire proof is based on an assumption, and is therefore not proof at all.



as well as geological evidence.


Show the empirical evidence that proves this. You can't just make generic statements like that and treat it as evidence. Clued by the fact that soft tissue is found in dinosaurs bones, they carbon dated the remains. Surely enough they all were younger than 40,000 years old.


source


originally posted by: Puppylove
Life has too many failings and faults to be created by a perfect designer.


We have defied our source code long ago and the consequences are showing. If you want to get into history that is for another forum.
edit on 27-2-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I'm guessing you're a bible thumping christian, so you're certainly not one to be talking about assumptions.

If you take anything back far enough it ultimately relies on some kind of assumption. The very belief that what you see from day to day is accurate is ultimately based on an assumption on your part. Based on past experience and evidence, but still an assumption, as we all know our minds and eyes can play tricks on us. You can break everything down to an assumption, or act of faith in something somewhere down the line. Just walking out your door is an act of faith.

There's no point arguing this if we're going to go into things being assumptions because that goes all ways. What's important is the data backing those assumptions. Science has plenty of data backing evolution, but yes, like the question why, if you ask it enough, it eventually results in, "I don't know", the goal of science is to take that why question, and go as far answering it as possible. Which is a hell of a lot more than saying, "because god did it" and going no further. If we followed that logic, we'd have never advanced in anything.
edit on 2/27/2020 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Ummmm....

Anaerobic Organism


An anaerobic organism or anaerobe is any organism that does not require oxygen for growth. It may react negatively or even die if free oxygen is present


You peeps need to head back and retake some highschool science classes...


edit on 27/2/2020 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: cooperton

I'm guessing you're a bible thumping christian, so you're certainly not one to be talking about assumptions.


Yikes and I'm guessing you're aggressively bigoted to anyone that believes differently than you?




Science has plenty of data backing evolution


No it doesn't. It survives on conjecture. Here are some key points that prove it is not based in reality:

1) We've never observed a population of an organism evolve into something else (despite millions of generations of artificial selection in the lab)

2) the probability of a successful protein domain change is estimated to be about
1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
...,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 source

3) soft tissue is consistently found in dinosaurs, they were carbon dated to always be less than 40,000 years old, and our ancestors consistently depicted dinosaurs (evidence for co-existence of humans and dinosaurs)

4) Human-made artifacts are found in coal coal is not as old as mainstream scientists assume

5) all biological components, from the scale of proteins to entire organs, are interdependent on other parts of the body to function. Darwin himself admitted long ago that such a finding would dismantle his theory



6) even anti-biotic resistance is is epigenetic inheritance, which is why it is so quickly reversible and therefore not evolution because it works with pre-set genetic variables. source - organisms adapt, but they can't evolve into something else.

7) polystrate fossils are found penetrating through multiple strata of geological layers. This shows that sedimentation was a fast process, and not the fabled billion year old process.







, but yes, like the question why, if you ask it enough, it eventually results in, "I don't know"


There is conclusive evidence that shows evolution is not possible. But the elitist scientists won't let their paradigm go. Their salary and ego is at stake. They survive off people blindly believing the theory, and taking their assumptions and opinions as dogma.


Which is a hell of a lot more than saying, "because god did it" and going no further.


An intelligent designer is much more probable than random chance generation given the immense complexity of the world around us. Therefore, Saying "evolution did it" is even worse, especially since there's no concrete evidence to support it.
edit on 27-2-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The fact that not all life needs oxygen is something we already know. The first life on Earth was known NOT to use oxygen. In fact, due to oxygen being a waste product of non-oxygen-using life, over a couple billion years oxygen levels grew high enough that it threatened to kill off most life on earth, because oxygen was toxic to that kind of life. There are still examples of anaerobic (non-oxygen using) simple single-celled life on Earth today.

However, as you specified in your post, you are not talking about simple single-celled life like there was in the early non-oxygen earth, but rather you talking about multicellular life, which is the type of life that took off once the earth became oxygen rich.

The parasitic organism that was mentioned in your post is believed to steal energy from its host rather than make its own, but oxygen was still required (indirectly) as part of that process...

...That is, the host organism metabolized energy using oxygen, and then the parasite stole that energy. This parasite would not do very well in a anaerobic (non-oxygen) environment if it relied on multicellular oxygen-using hosts. I doubt the parasite would be able to latch onto simple anaerobic single-celled creatures.


edit on 2/27/2020 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

How does a natural interpretation of evolution explain this?



It can't. Evolutionary theory has had its Achilles heel torn thousands of times over. It just gets ignored because there's grant money and scientists' egos at stake.


Exactly!

How can a natural interpretation explain a multicellular lifeform that evolved without needing oxygen and without mitochondrial DNA? Where's the intermediate steps? Like you said, it can't.

This is almost like an alien species. How can a multicellular lifeform like this evolve on earth?


I am not disagreeing with you here, but since you obviously do not agree with evolutionary theory, what then do you suspect is responsible for this?



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
7) polystrate fossils are found penetrating through multiple strata of geological layers. This shows that sedimentation was a fast process, and not the fabled billion year old process.


It's not really a mystery or anything that goes against the standard model of geology. It has been understood for some time now that even though the laying of strata due to sedimentation is usually a slow process, there are certain situations that it could be a (relatively) very fast process, such as places that may have had frequent episodes of flooding that each laid down sediment, deluges, or ash laid down by volcanic activity.

There isn't just one way things (such as the laying down of strata) happen.



posted on Feb, 27 2020 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: M4ngo

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

How does a natural interpretation of evolution explain this?



It can't. Evolutionary theory has had its Achilles heel torn thousands of times over. It just gets ignored because there's grant money and scientists' egos at stake.


Exactly!

How can a natural interpretation explain a multicellular lifeform that evolved without needing oxygen and without mitochondrial DNA? Where's the intermediate steps? Like you said, it can't.

This is almost like an alien species. How can a multicellular lifeform like this evolve on earth?


I am not disagreeing with you here, but since you obviously do not agree with evolutionary theory, what then do you suspect is responsible for this?


I agree with evolution. I just say a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy that belongs in Middle Earth with the Hobbits. An intelligent design interpretation of evolution is the only interpretation that matches the evidence.

Here's some highlights from a thread I started in Origins and Creation called "How do traits evolve? Where do traits come from?"

DNA is clear evidence of intelligent design.

The sequence of objects or symbols don't have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and this symbol / isn't encoded with any information. When intelligence says the sequence */ and /* has start and stop functions for what we will call C comments, then intelligence has encoded these symbols with information.

Again, / and * don't encode their sequence with information that can be decoded any more than ACTG can in DNA.

The sequence has to be encoded with information by intelligence. How can anything evolve if the sequence isn't first given meaning by intelligence?


Here's more:

How can successful mutations occur without pre existing information? People who push a natural interpretation of evolution act like the mutation, which is just a copying error at times, is more important than the code that's being mutated. Are these magic mutations that just happen for no reason? That makes no sense.

Some of these mutations occur at the right time and this is obvious design like with sickle cell. When Malaria becomes widespread, a mutation is triggered at the right point to code for Valine instead of Glutamic acid.

How can the errors that occur when the code is being copied create the code that's being copied?

I know it sounds silly, but it's the natural interpretation of evolution in a nutshell.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is just another blow to a natural interpretation of evolution. You have a multicellular parasite that doesn't breathe oxygen and doesn't have mitochondrial DNA. Where's the step by step process that lead to this parasite? Where's the intermediate steps?



posted on Feb, 28 2020 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

It's not really a mystery or anything that goes against the standard model of geology.


That's one of the many pieces of evidence that disprove the standard model of geology. Here's others:









There's much, much, more. We always hear "geology proves evolution", without any explanation. We just take their word for it. It is crammed into our minds early in our schooling which makes the brain-washing more effective. Evolutionary theory is the state-sanctioned belief system disguised as science, But it is not actually based in observable data.



posted on Mar, 1 2020 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

No that is only conjecture...It is literally backwards science.


So you are only in favor of frontwards science, no working backwards at all, forensic science must be bunk too, no way we could ever figure out what happened before now.

I feel like this is almost like banning every sex position but missionary.


originally posted by: cooperton
The whole theory has no actual empirical evidence to stand on. Take for example soft tissue being found in dinosaur bones. Real science shows evolution is an outright lie.


So soft tissue would exist inside of dinosaur bones, it's the fact they are finding tissue inside dinosaur fossils is, I believe, what your griping about.

Please tell me how this evidence changes everything and explain why we find so little of this soft tissue if it is so important to your evolution breaking theory.



posted on Mar, 1 2020 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Poofmander

So you are only in favor of frontwards science, no working backwards at all, forensic science must be bunk too, no way we could ever figure out what happened before now.


I'm not saying scientific conjecture into the past is wrong. It is backwards science because they assume the theory to be true and speculate accordingly without actual empirical evidence to prove it. That is why it's backwards. The real scientific method involves using observable evidence to postulate a theory.




So soft tissue would is found in dinosaur bones..

Please tell me how this evidence changes everything and explain why we find so little of this soft tissue if it is so important to your evolution breaking theory.


Soft tissue doesn't persist for 100s of millions of years. DNA doesn't either (which they also found fragments of). The fact we find it shows that dinosaurs are much younger. I compiled all the evidence that supports this idea: Dinosaurs lived alongside humans



posted on Mar, 1 2020 @ 12:58 PM
link   
One for us older folks, but perhaps it's like Bill Clinton ... it never inhaled.



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: neoholographic

Ummmm....

Anaerobic Organism


An anaerobic organism or anaerobe is any organism that does not require oxygen for growth. It may react negatively or even die if free oxygen is present


You peeps need to head back and retake some highschool science classes...



Probably why she's called Dorothee and not Dr. Dorothee.

edit on bAmerica/ChicagoAmerica/Chicago593159America/Chicago by Beestie because: typo



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Who says it evolved on earth ?



originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

How does a natural interpretation of evolution explain this?



It can't. Evolutionary theory has had its Achilles heel torn thousands of times over. It just gets ignored because there's grant money and scientists' egos at stake.


Exactly!

How can a natural interpretation explain a multicellular lifeform that evolved without needing oxygen and without mitochondrial DNA? Where's the intermediate steps? Like you said, it can't.

This is almost like an alien species. How can a multicellular lifeform like this evolve on earth?



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

we are the terraformers

here working and terraforming for someone or something else



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Another "gotcha" thread that only proves certain parties are more interested in their own agenda than what the data actually says.



Although aerobic respiration is a hallmark of eukaryotes, a few unicellular lineages, growing in hypoxic environments, have secondarily lost this ability. In the absence of oxygen, the mitochondria of these organisms have lost all or parts of their genomes and evolved into mitochondria-related organelles (MROs). There has been debate regarding the presence of MROs in animals. Using deep sequencing approaches, we discovered that a member of the Cnidaria, the myxozoan Henneguya salminicola, has no mitochondrial genome, and thus has lost the ability to perform aerobic cellular respiration. This indicates that these core eukaryotic features are not ubiquitous among animals. Our analyses suggest that H. salminicola lost not only its mitochondrial genome but also nearly all nuclear genes involved in transcription and replication of the mitochondrial genome. In contrast, we identified many genes that encode proteins involved in other mitochondrial pathways and determined that genes involved in aerobic respiration or mitochondrial DNA replication were either absent or present only as pseudogenes.


It should be noted that their research is not yet complete and they were unwilling to elaborate on the mechanisms of this creature without further study to inform their conclusions.
edit on 2-3-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Another "gotcha" thread that only proves certain parties are more interested in their own agenda than what the data actually says.


It should be noted that their research is not yet complete and they were unwilling to elaborate on the mechanisms of this creature without further study to inform their conclusions.


Further research is required to prove evolution is possible. Over 150 years since the theory was proposed and not one example of a population of organisms changing into another organism has occurred, despite countless generations being artificially selected in labs. Yet you still tout evolution as fact.You are the one more interested in your own agenda rather than what the data says.

Evolutionary theory is a baseless fantasy.



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Another "gotcha" thread that only proves certain parties are more interested in their own agenda than what the data actually says.


It should be noted that their research is not yet complete and they were unwilling to elaborate on the mechanisms of this creature without further study to inform their conclusions.


Further research is required to prove evolution is possible. Over 150 years since the theory was proposed and not one example of a population of organisms changing into another organism has occurred, despite countless generations being artificially selected in labs. Yet you still tout evolution as fact.You are the one more interested in your own agenda rather than what the data says.

Evolutionary theory is a baseless fantasy.


As opposed to the research done to study/measure divine intervention and supernatural meddling in earthly biology? Incredulity is not experimentation and data. Show us your methodology, not your conjecture and staggering disbelief in tried and proven techniques. You have a specific claim, so demonstrate how the data here shows conclusively that some form of "higher power" was responsible for this animal.
edit on 2-3-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2020 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

As opposed to the research done to study/measure divine intervention and supernatural meddling in earthly biology?


You see what you do here? Because you can't defend your beliefs with empirical data or logic, you resort to a strawman argument.


Show us your methodology, not your conjecture and staggering disbelief in tried and proven techniques.


Like the proven technique of extracting soft tissue from dinosaur remains? Like the proven technique of analyzing polystrate fossils that prove rapid sedimentation? Like the list of human-made artifacts found in coal? Like the carbon-dating data showing that dinosaurs, coal, and diamonds are all less than 50,000 years old? Like the half-life of DNA that insists no DNA bonds should exist 5000 years after the death of the organism?

What methodology are you referring to? Evolution has never been shown in a lab, despite millions of generations trying to do so.. All empirical evidence insists that evolution does not happen.


Notice how you never mention what these "proven techniques" are, instead you just make blanket statements with no actual empirical data to support it. It is that sort of blind belief that perpetuates the pseudoscience of evolutionary theory.
edit on 2-3-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join