It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sorry to go against your wish's Mike, but I have to do this. I can't stand seeing blatant stupidity thrown around like it's the newest hottest thing to do this year.
Well Mr. SquireeelNutz, your just a bit wrong in your line of logic here. There is no physical process that allows for a fully functioning and fueled 747 to form out of non-organic molecules. From that right there alone we can shoot down your analogy.
We have discovered that non-organic compounds can and do combine to create organic precursors of life. This feat in itself has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. What you dismissing away is called abiogenesis.
Wrong, we can trace our evolution back about six million years. LINK
So the fusing of two chromosomes leaving us with 46 and the rest of the primates with 48 makes us less superior? Where do you get your logic from, in order to be more superior we should have more chromosomes? Somehow I don't think you know what your talking about... idk, call me crazy, just a gut feeling here... possibly too many squirrelnutz for you, try slowing down.
What I should have said was Okay, Organic molecules DID exist 'in the beginning', however, in nature they don't spontaneously reassemble into the ever more complex molecules. Biological dogma simply insists the stroll down the magical yellow brick road of scientific imagination had to occur this way because cell components do exist and must be accounted for in a "natural" way.
So, you're telling me that you still believe (as I once did) that all life began in the primordial soup, starting with single celled organisms, and with the perfect combination of clay formations, amino acids, lightening, whatever the hell you want to throw in here, ultimately ended up in the human beings that we are today? Is that what I'm to understand?
Post all the links you want, Sparky - that is all unprovable disinformation - rather than the 6 million years, please just try to concentrate on a much more manageable chunk: from primate to pre-human to homo sapien. This is where evolutionary theory just completely falls apart...
The Darwinist evolutionary paradigm requires "gradual" transitions among and between species, with one deftly morphing into another over vast stretches of time. Unfortunately for you Darwinists (again, used to be me), the contemporary fossil record DOES NOT support the dogma. Instead, we find huge jumps such as the one between Australopithecines and early Homos - not even close - one more time for the cheap seats: NOT EVEN CLOSE to a 'transition', it is a total transformation (i.e. we were helped along)
You completely misread that sentence - read it again. Obviously, WE (humans) are FAR superior to primates, yet we are so with LESS DNA? Yeah, I don't think so (them 48, us 46) - that was the point of that statement.
You think God or little green men from mars made us
Hey Sirnex. Hows it going. You may be able to help me with a question. How much information is in the Human body if you broke it down into bits, as the way they do with computers, if that kind of thing can be answered at all? Taking into account the memory, processing speed, power supply, power distribution center, cognitive procedures, healing mechanisms, ect..... It seems it would be reasonable to think it would be in the thousands of trillions of bits of information, if not more. Possibly a lot more.
And second question. With the evolutionary process, seemingly slow and random (which would make it even slower), putting the information into place. How long would it take to, sometimes randomly, put together hundreds of trillions of bits of information together. If evolution through random selection could produce 1000 bits of information within 1 year that would be quiet a bit of information for a random process. Would you agree with that? If so, and that is the case it would take longer than the Earth has been around, Trillions of years or way more, to end up where we are today.
Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by downunderET
What brought you to that conclusion?
If I may ask.
Exactly. So how can one reason that with the variety of life on this planet some more complex than others, and the very slow process of evolution, that with all the genetic information which makes up all life evolved in only billions of years when it would take trillions?
Also to say, " from simple life to less simple life" comparing a single cell organism to what we have become is true, but the words of Francis Crick comes to mind, which is my signature. I thought it was cool so I changed to it. lol.
Since Humans are not anymore complex than any other creature, then why are we so much more adaptable to an environment. We can survive in more parts of the world than any other living thing. That would mean we are evolutionarily more advanced. How can that be if we are one of the youngest species according to evolution?
Where do you get the idea that it would take trillions of years? We are no more complex genetically than anything else on this planet. Life may take different shapes and form and live in different environmental niches and eat different foods, but we all share most of the same genetic code. Humans are no more complex than a mouse.
That's a great quote! Life does indeed seem to be miraculous to those who don't understand the underlying physics, chemistry and biology that allows it to occur. Not saying we have a complete understand of the process in whole, but enough of an understanding to know that it isn't ruled out by the universe.
We're not the youngest species, we're the oldest adaptation change from the youngest species. We don't equate a ninety year old younger than a three month old do we? We can adapt to different environments because we have a higher capacity for abstract thought, language and communal society. Throw a single human into a harsh environment and he'll perish alone, we can't adapt on our own. We live in familial packs and larger communal groups and that strength in number is what allows us to adapt more easily.