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 Origin Of Life Conspiracy

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ah! However, BAC....in the quest for a 'T.O.E.' or, 'Theory of Everything'....which even Einstein attempted, in is day....as an advocate of the 'Steady State' theory of the Universe, Einstein inserted an 'hypothesis' into his equations, to make the math work....which he ackowledged as the greatest blunder of his life...after Hubble noticed the red shift of distant galaxies, showing that the Universe was expanding, and not in a steady state....

You see? Even Einstein could admit when he was wrong....he had an assumption, did the math, devised a 'cure'....for THAT math....but, he didn't know about the 'big bang' and 'quantum theory' (which came much, much later) because, had he lived, he would have likely embraced these new ideas....

But, you asked about 'gravity'. Well, no one can yet understand why it is so weak! I know, a large body such as the Earth exerts gravity....but a magnet the size of a pea can defy gravity....why? WHY is electromagnetism stronger than gravity????

We use electricity...we know a lot about it, but don't really understand EVERYTHING about it...it is still a 'THEORY'. Magnetism is in that category as well....and, the weak and strong nuclear forces, inside the atoms.....it is postulated that gravity is somehow related to all of those forces, but we just haven't figured it out yet...exactly.

It is a FACT of gravity....we see and feel it. IT is a FACT that atoms exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

(I know....Einstien's equations pointed to a distortion in 'space/time' to "explain" gravity....but quantum physics are opening up new possibilities...)

Gravity is a FACT.....atoms are a FACT.....

Gravity is a 'theory', because all of the 'facts', as many as there are, still haven't described it thoroughly.

Atoms are a FACT.....but the actual shape of atoms, the 'reality' of atoms, is still theoritical.

Abiogenesis.....the point....how about looking at it as the 'chicken or the egg?' problem???

Reason?? It is an over-simplicification, which is a tactic of 'creationists'!!

So far, what I've seen in this thread by the 'naysayers' is just a bunch of negativity. If, given quadrillions of molecules (and that is a very minuscule number, by the way) in the early oceans, and possible quintillions of interactions, along with a salty sea and constant electrical activity in the skies of early Earth, during its formation.....

Seems people against this concept have some sort of 'Science Fiction' approach to the concept....as if, it MUST only happen in ONE spot on Earth, as oppossed to about a million or a billion places, over a span of millenia.....

Open minds, y'all!!!





The chicken and the egg paradox is simple yet complex.

Same thing as the first reproductive creature, what did it reproduce with?

Same thing as emotions, why evolve emotions? They serve no purpose for survival that is greater than instinct (which is another unexplainable reality). In fact why do we feel bad for killing someone? Only helps us to eliminate competition, no?

Same as imagination, why only humans? Why can't animals imagine things, and act on that?

These questions go on forever.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


BAC.....you really should consider not spouting the 'junk' that has been spewing into your ears, because you just keep spewing the same junk that entered your ears without thoroughly processing it through your "god-given" mind!!!

OK....sorry, that was harsh.....but, I am sensing a possible 'breakthrough' if only I can find the right words.....

The planet we currently reside upon is roughly 4 BILLION years old.....this, in a Universe that is roughly 14 BILLION years old....wy hte difference?

Because, our Sun is what is called a 'third generation' star....this means, that in the early Universe, Stars formed...burned for a while, made heavier elements....besides the two Hydrogen and Helium.....through Nuclear Fusion, progressivy heavier Elements were formed....this didn't happen in six days, sorry!

EVERY early star likely contributed to the mix, within OUR galaxy, that we see today....stars formed, burned for, to our time frame, a billion or so years, and exploded....during their burn, they fused the basics, Hydrogen and Helium, into many, many other elements....each time an element is formed, by tremendous heat and pressure, electrons are released...to collide with other atoms, or to become part of the EM spectrum....

Alright!!! let's say, just for grins....there is a 'creator'. SO, this 'creator' decides to put us, the Humans, on a planet ill-suited for our survival, in the virtual 'Suburbs' of a not so interesting Galaxy....when there are literally BILLIONS of other Galaxies....just by our own observations....AND, we know, also, that there are BILLIONS of other Stars in our own Galaxy, just by our own observations.....

YET! Somehow, WE are the 'annointed' ones"

Do you not recognize the hubris in that?

My initial inpulse is to use a hamster as an analogy....a pet hamster.

So, this hamster is happy in his cage, he has discovered to World, to the best of his ability (he thinks) and some 'higher power' provides water and kibbles, and periodically changes the ness he makes in the bottom of his cage....

Is THIS what you expect for Humanity!?!???!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


BAC.....you really should consider not spouting the 'junk' that has been spewing into your ears, because you just keep spewing the same junk that entered your ears without thoroughly processing it through your "god-given" mind!!!

OK....sorry, that was harsh.....but, I am sensing a possible 'breakthrough' if only I can find the right words.....

The planet we currently reside upon is roughly 4 BILLION years old.....this, in a Universe that is roughly 14 BILLION years old....wy hte difference?

Because, our Sun is what is called a 'third generation' star....this means, that in the early Universe, Stars formed...burned for a while, made heavier elements....besides the two Hydrogen and Helium.....through Nuclear Fusion, progressivy heavier Elements were formed....this didn't happen in six days, sorry!

EVERY early star likely contributed to the mix, within OUR galaxy, that we see today....stars formed, burned for, to our time frame, a billion or so years, and exploded....during their burn, they fused the basics, Hydrogen and Helium, into many, many other elements....each time an element is formed, by tremendous heat and pressure, electrons are released...to collide with other atoms, or to become part of the EM spectrum....

Alright!!! let's say, just for grins....there is a 'creator'. SO, this 'creator' decides to put us, the Humans, on a planet ill-suited for our survival, in the virtual 'Suburbs' of a not so interesting Galaxy....when there are literally BILLIONS of other Galaxies....just by our own observations....AND, we know, also, that there are BILLIONS of other Stars in our own Galaxy, just by our own observations.....

YET! Somehow, WE are the 'annointed' ones"

Do you not recognize the hubris in that?

My initial inpulse is to use a hamster as an analogy....a pet hamster.

So, this hamster is happy in his cage, he has discovered to World, to the best of his ability (he thinks) and some 'higher power' provides water and kibbles, and periodically changes the ness he makes in the bottom of his cage....

Is THIS what you expect for Humanity!?!???!!!


No flaming? Then you flame? Nice of you.

I've never brought the previous points up before, yet you claim I'm spouting the same things over and over?

I'm not here just to argue, stick to your points or evidence, then I'll respond.

Like you said Billions of planets, yet somehow we are the only ones we know of. I can use that same argument for my position.

I've concluded this "junk" with my own logic and research.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue

My "theory" is that evolution will never be proven, just like the Genesis story in the Bible, which could be just as possible.

I do think Genesis is just as credible as Evolution, and just as unprovable.
But, at least the Bible has prophecy in it that came about, so.........

From Wikipedia:

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.


Ever heard of bacteria becoming resistant to certain chemicals over time? That's evolution.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyindevil

Originally posted by sezsue

My "theory" is that evolution will never be proven, just like the Genesis story in the Bible, which could be just as possible.

I do think Genesis is just as credible as Evolution, and just as unprovable.
But, at least the Bible has prophecy in it that came about, so.........

From Wikipedia:

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.


Ever heard of bacteria becoming resistant to certain chemicals over time? That's evolution.


I think what sezsue meant was evolution as it has to to with creation ie; abiogenesis.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyindevil


Ever heard of bacteria becoming resistant to certain chemicals over time? That's evolution.


I think it is erroneous to use the example of bacteria becoming drug resistant as proof of evolution.
Here is why:

If a bacterial culture or strain is exposed to some chemical or antibiotic , those individual bacteria not already resistant will die off. Those that survive are already resistant, otherwise they would be dead.

The survivors begin to multiply quickly becoming the majority, taking the place of the bacteria that were not already resistant. Now you have a strain of bacteria that is different from the original strain in that the majority are resistant to the drug.

Does this mean that the individual bacteria have somehow evolved? No, It is actually an example of survival of the fittest. In this case the fittest being the ones resistant to the drug. The weaker bacteria have died, the stronger ones flourished, but they did not evolve a defense to the drug. Their DNA did not mutate or change within the lifespan of an individual bacteria.
So no evolution took place.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
There are 3 known ways that bacteria can become resistant.

Mutations, conjuncton & DNA transposition or transduction.

Mutations do happen, but they do not happen as a result of being exposed to certain drug like an antibiotic. It is not as if the bacteria are attacked and then mutate to form a defense.

Futumya has noted:

“...the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them” (1983, pp. 137,138).

Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books).

This simply means that the Bacteria did not mutate after being exposed to the antibiotic. The mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics.

A good example of this is Lederbergs’ experiments in 1952 on streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance. Malcolm Bowden has observed:


“What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria” (1991, p. 56).

These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations.
Lederberg, J. and E.M. Lederberg (1952), Journal of Bacteriology, 63:399.

No matter how the bacteria became resistant, thruogh mutations, conjunction or transduction, they are still bacteria. They are the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56).
Bowden, M. (1991), Science vs. Evolution (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications).
www.apologeticspress.org...
I wont delve into Conjunction or Transduction as they are rather boring...and tedious. The conclusion is is still the same.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
I think it is erroneous to use the example of bacteria becoming drug resistant as proof of evolution.


It's proof of evolution. Darwin wrote a book about it.

"If there are variations in a population, and

If they are inherited, and

If one variant is more suited to some task than others, and

If that task directly affects survival and reproduction,

Then selection will result in evolutionary change over time...

If the selective pressure is applied over time."
John Lynch

It's called natural selection.


...

Does this mean that the individual bacteria have somehow evolved? No, It is actually an example of survival of the fittest. In this case the fittest being the ones resistant to the drug. The weaker bacteria have died, the stronger ones flourished, but they did not evolve a defense to the drug. Their DNA did not mutate or change within the lifespan of an individual bacteria.
So no evolution took place.



Where do you get this individual bacteria evolving in its lifespan thingymajig? lol

Evolution is seen at the level of the population - an organism having a useful mutation without passing it on isn't much use. What you are describing is an important component of evolution - selection. Given, in the case you present the resistant genes were already in the population, and their possession of beneficial traits lead them to survive and reproduce, and so come to dominate the population (still evolution)

However, as you note in your next post, we know that mutations can produce resistance. It's well-described now. We even know of particular pathways to resistance. We know that bacteria can readily swap genes. We even have bacteria populations that have evolved to consume the bleedin' antibiotics (vancomycin) we have been attacking them with, lol (and then losing the trait when the food source is removed, as they become dependent).

This is a strawman:


It is not as if the bacteria are attacked and then mutate to form a defense


And one of your quotes just supports the notion of mutations being random (uncorrelated to environmental needs). Which is generally the case.

Hence we have the potential for beneficial mutation and natural selection. And so we fall back to the creationists supervillain bunker...

Yeah, yeah, the bacteria didn't become an elephant, lol.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Microbiologists have studied extensively two genera of bacteria in their attempts to understand antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:

...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).
Grass‚, Pierre-Paul (1977), The Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press).
Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.
The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.
www.apologeticspress.org...
You wrote:

Yeah, yeah, the bacteria didn't become an elephant, lol.

That my friend is a strawman. LOL

Melatonin kindly pointed out that I did not cite my sources. Let me correct that.
Most of the post above was derived from this site: www.apologeticspress.org...


[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Was actually a mocking point with a hint of truth, but no worries.

Why do you keep plagairising? It's tedious and dishonest.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thank you for pointing that out. I went back and edited my post to show the source.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Almost all the post should be external tagged. The only bit you wrote was the part about bacteria to elephant.

Your posts are barely worth responding to really. If I spend 10 minutes thinking, researching, and typing something out, you respond by C&P from some apologetics site, lol.

This is why you just keep regurgitating the same old, even when you have a previous response to the same post (e.g., LH enantiomers). If all your argument comes down to is 'it's all so bleedin' complex, therefore magic', then there's not much to discuss. Just a god-gap stuffing argument wallowing in ignorance.

If you find it convincing, cool.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Almost all the post should be external tagged. The only bit you wrote was the part about bacteria to elephant.

Your posts are barely worth responding to really. If I spend 10 minutes thinking, researching, and typing something out, you respond by C&P from some apologetics site, lol.

This is why you just keep regurgitating the same old, even when you have a previous response to the same post (e.g., LH enantiomers). If all your argument comes down to is 'it's all so bleedin' complex, therefore magic', then there's not much to discuss. Just a god-gap stuffing argument wallowing in ignorance.

If you find it convincing, cool.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by melatonin]


He's posted sources for all of his data. He forgot on ONE source.

.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
No Melatonin is right. I should have formatted it differently.
I will try to be more cautious in the future. I have no problem with admitting mistakes.

I used to believe in evolution until I became more familiar with the enormous complexity involved and the lack of a suitable explanation for abiogenesis. Maybe one day scientists will duplicate it....if so I will be the first to change my mind, until then I will continue to reject it as the explanation for life.

I appreciate all the sources provided by the supporters of evolution and abiogenesis. (by all means, keep them coming) While interesting, informative and sometimes highly speculative, they do not provide proof of life originating by chance.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Same thing as emotions, why evolve emotions? They serve no purpose for survival that is greater than instinct (which is another unexplainable reality). In fact why do we feel bad for killing someone? Only helps us to eliminate competition, no?


Emotions serve a very important role in a societal environment.
Emotions play a role in: finding a mate/reproduction, family or group protection, and forming standards for the society to live by for better production and safety within itself.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Same as imagination, why only humans? Why can't animals imagine things, and act on that?


What makes you think that animals can't imagine things?



Originally posted by B.A.C.
These questions go on forever.


No, they are easily answered if you understand the basic system.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
He's posted sources for all of his data. He forgot on ONE source.


Many of Sparky's posts are C&Ps from elsewhere. One was just a C&P of an old post he made - in which case a link to the old post would be in order, as responses are then also available.

ABE:

Anyway, your comment on emotions - lol. Dude, they are as adaptive as a physiological process can be, underpinning all sorts of biologically important processes. Glad someone noted it.

ABE2:

lolwut?
|
V


[edit on 5-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Same thing as emotions, why evolve emotions? They serve no purpose for survival that is greater than instinct (which is another unexplainable reality). In fact why do we feel bad for killing someone? Only helps us to eliminate competition, no?


Emotions serve a very important role in a societal environment.
Emotions play a role in: finding a mate/reproduction, family or group protection, and forming standards for the society to live by for better production and safety within itself.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Same as imagination, why only humans? Why can't animals imagine things, and act on that?


What makes you think that animals can't imagine things?



Originally posted by B.A.C.
These questions go on forever.


No, they are easily answered if you understand the basic system.


Why don't animals have emotion is the part I'm getting at. Instead they just eat their babies if there isn't enough food to go around.

I don't think animals can imagine things and act on them. Or they would and we could observe it.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
He's posted sources for all of his data. He forgot on ONE source.


Many of Sparky's posts are C&Ps from elsewhere. One was just a C&P of an old post he made - in which case a link to the old post would be in order, as responses are then also available.


I agree.

Like he said he was mistaken.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't animals have emotion is the part I'm getting at. Instead they just eat their babies if there isn't enough food to go around.

Do animals not mourn? Do they not feel fear or whine? Do cats not purr? I would find these things indicate certain levels of emotion, but you might not.

Certain animals will eat there young, while certain humans will kill others.
[This is a weird way of justifying it but] between an animal and it's child dying of hunger and only it's child dying, they would rather live and let their child die.
Would you rather kill yourself, and in doing so, kill your child, or would you rather kill (and possibly) eat your child? (MAN, this thread got morbid
)

Of course, this is not always the case.

Is there a reason that you don't believe animals have emotions?
Is it because they don't have a "soul"?
Just want to find out more.




[edit on 5-3-2009 by flyindevil]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyindevil

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't animals have emotion is the part I'm getting at. Instead they just eat their babies if there isn't enough food to go around.

Do animals not mourn? Do they not feel fear or whine? Do cats not purr? I would find these things indicate certain levels of emotion, but you might not.

Certain animals will eat there young, while certain humans will kill others.
[This is a weird way of justifying it but] between an animal and it's child dying of hunger and only it's child dying, they would rather live and let their child die.
Would you rather kill yourself, and in doing so, kill your child, or would you rather kill (and possibly) eat your child? (MAN, this thread got morbid
)

Of course, this is not always the case.

Is there a reason that you don't believe animals have emotions?
Is it because they don't have a "soul"?
Just want to find out more.




[edit on 5-3-2009 by flyindevil]


I LOL'd for real at how morbid this discussion is.


Hmm, interesting question, I guess they have some sort of emotion (moreso with our pets), although I think with them it's more to do with instinct.

A soul? I have no idea if they do or not.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join