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.
Thank You.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by atlasastro
Well, I can't speak for him, but I can still give you an answer.
You believe Abiogenesis has no precise or logical relevance to the matter of Evolution?
The origin of life is not pertinent to evolution,
Evolutionary study is the study of processes of change in inherited traits of a population of organic life over successive generations. At one point, there was the evolution of matter into organic life or the first generation, that would be origins, but we call the study of that Abiogenesis.
simply because evolutionary study focuses on what life does.
Really. That is an amazing observation.
If there is evolution to study, then life is already present; if there is no life, there's no evolution to study.
You might as well be asking why Music theory does not discuss the origins of the universe.
Do you think the questions relating to the origins of life, which remain unanswered, are valid reasons to remain skeptical of evolution?
Originally posted by Serizawa
I always wondered why we are able to excavate dinosaur remains that are millions of years old, early mamals, primitive beings such as the neanderthal/homo erectus.....but have never been able to find the missing link
...there must be millions of remainds scattered throughout the globe, at a relatively shallow depth? Since they are supposedly newer species than the listed.
Do you think Abiogenesis/Autogenesis is a totally different topic to evolution?
If so why?
Do you think the questions relating to the origins of life, which remain unanswered, are valid reasons to remain skeptical of evolution?
C
I do not mind at all. In fact I welcome you're reply.
Originally posted by Monsieur Neary
Do you think the questions relating to the origins of life, which remain unanswered, are valid reasons to remain skeptical of evolution?
I know this question wasn't directed towards me, but I hope you'll allow me to chime in.
I agree, yet there is skepticism specifically directed at Evolution for this reason and I think people need to understand why because it is fundamental to the OP topic.
I would answer no, not knowing the exact mechanism of life's origins is not a valid reason to remain skeptical of evolution.
The only valid reason to remain skeptical of evolution would be if there was no evidence for it.
But you are missing the point. As this debate is about Creationist arguments the reams of data only support a description of a process that creationists or intelligent designers can simply attributed to an intelligent designer unless you can account for origins as a process of evolution.
While there is no definitive answer to the origin of life, the evidence for evolution is undisputed by virtually all reputable biologists investigating the matter. The reams of data supporting evolution makes the question of knowing or not knowing the origins of life irrelevant.
As an analogy, we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but that doesn't provide a valid reason to be skeptical of the basic idea of universe expansion.
Originally posted by BlastedCaddy
*raises hand*
If we evolved from apes why are there still apes around. From my understanding and just looking around. All species that have evolved have no ancestors so to say kickin around where as we have all sorts of monkeys that we evolved from still hanging out.