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.
Originally posted by edmc^2
plube, I think you’re confusing the meaning of “evolution” with “development” – as in improvement. And sometimes people get confused with these words.
Just to be clear, here’s my understanding of the meaning of “evolution” as defined by evolutionist (unless it evolved again - I mean the meaning changed).
Evolution: refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Any idea how large the probability number is?
You should know this.
ty,
edmc2
Evolution: refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.
Here's your illustration: Drop pile beans in a bucket containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. Now thoroughly mixed it. Remember there are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get?...
Originally posted by evil incarnate
Originally posted by edmc^2
plube, I think you’re confusing the meaning of “evolution” with “development” – as in improvement. And sometimes people get confused with these words.
Just to be clear, here’s my understanding of the meaning of “evolution” as defined by evolutionist (unless it evolved again - I mean the meaning changed).
Evolution: refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.
Could you please cite which evolutionist you got this from? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life so if anyone is confused, I would have to say it is you.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Do you know that in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. What did this accomplished. Well, it produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Sad huh.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for pointing that out, it's understandable you know, because many evolutionist are confused too as to the real meaning of “organic evolution”.
Kindly please update me, because last time I did my research on this subject I was using one of your most famous evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins. I was gonna go with Charles Darwin, but there's a growing class of scientist and evolutionists who are changing their minds about the father of evolution theory.
*Snip*
I can go on and on but I think this should do. Now if you disagree with Prof. Dawkins, on his statements, please let me know and offer a new more evolve definition of evolution- i.e. organic evolution.
Do you know that in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. What did this accomplished. Well, it produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Sad huh.
They were really hard at work in trying to produce life from nothing.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for pointing that out, it's understandable you know, because many evolutionist are confused too as to the real meaning of “organic evolution”.
Kindly please update me, because last time I did my research on this subject I was using one of your most famous evolutionist Prof. Richard Dawkins.
organic evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
I was gonna go with Charles Darwin, but there's a growing class of scientist and evolutionists who are changing their minds about the father of evolution theory.
Anyway, here's your favorite evolutionist (summary of what he said).
He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
Continuing, he described that, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident” —a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself. – The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.
I can go on and on but I think this should do. Now if you disagree with Prof. Dawkins, on his statements, please let me know and offer a new more evolve definition of evolution- i.e. organic evolution.
Summary:
The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?.
BTW,
Do you know that in 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. What did this accomplished. Well, it produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. Sad huh.
Then amazingly Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions. – The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.
They were really hard at work in trying to produce life from nothing.
Q: so if you think that life didn't come from nothing - then where did it come from?
I hope you're not going the 'Alien' route.
Ty,
edmc2
later....
reply to post by edmc^2
He speculated that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
By this speculative it would take evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started. Slim chhance after slim chance after slim chance X 50 = Does not equate to scientific law.
Originally posted by randyvs
By this speculative it would take evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started. Slim chhance after slim chance after slim chance X 50 =
Does not equate to scientific law.
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
Originally posted by edmc^2
Thanks for pointing that out, it's understandable you know, because many evolutionist are confused too as to the real meaning of “organic evolution”.
Not really. Abiogenesis is totally different matter, and I've never heard on an educated "evolutionist" that says anything different. Mind you, there's a big difference between an educated biologist, and some random dude on a random webpage, in case that is where you get your information...
Sorry Ed; you just described abiogenesis, not evolution.
Evolution is about the changes in life over time. It has nothing what-so-ever to say about non-life. Non-life does not 'evolve'.
In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis...”
“These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” pp 30, 31.
“evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” – Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H. S. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
“All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.” – The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68