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.

 

Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

page: 17
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I have heard it passionately argued from evolutionists that for an evolutionist this fellow is your ancestor.



That is CUTE!!!

tx,
edmc2




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well I thought it was time to inject a little humor into this discussion, as it can get very repetitive after awhile.

Thus the 2 pictures of funny looking monkeys.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well I thought it was time to inject a little humor into this discussion, as it can get very repetitive after awhile.

Thus the 2 pictures of funny looking monkeys.


He, he...just made my day!!

tx,
edmc2



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I have heard it passionately argued from evolutionists that for an evolutionist this fellow is your ancestor.

A chimp?

You really don't have a clue about this, do you?

Months and years of 'debating' evolution with people who could teach you everything an informed layman needs to know on the subject and what you have learned? Nothing.

You should be proud, Blue_Jay33. I don't think I could have achieved that if I tried.



edit on 16/2/11 by Astyanax because: of self-censorship



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Because evolution doesn't hold that modern creatures are our evolutionary ancestors, as they in turn evolved from previously existing creatures. No modern creature has an extant ancestor that far removed. Sure, we do have a tailed primate in our ancestry, but not the proboscis monkey, which I double checked on and was surprised to find that I identified correctly. Must have been the nose, dead giveaway.

Please, try understanding evolution before you discuss it.

Now, would you please answer my question:

How would a supernatural cause of life prevent evolution from being true?
edit on 16/2/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Added last two lines.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


No, MrXYZ is merely stating that life must have originated for it to have evolved. Of course, it doesn't matter how it originated. As I've already asked ad nauseum: "How would a supernatural cause for life prevent evolution from being true?"



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I have heard it passionately argued from evolutionists that for an evolutionist this fellow is your ancestor.


Do you disagree?
Please set the record straight for us otherwise.

edit on 16-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


So you still don't get that we don't come from chimps? We have a common ANCESTOR with todays apes, we don't come from modern apes. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can make this...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2
 


No, MrXYZ is merely stating that life must have originated for it to have evolved. Of course, it doesn't matter how it originated. As I've already asked ad nauseum: "How would a supernatural cause for life prevent evolution from being true?"


^^ THIS!!

I mean, for all we care, a giant pink unicorn could be responsible for life...but when it comes to biodiversity and how live evolved, the theory of evolution would still stand.

Life is a prerequisite for the theory, nothing more, and nothing less. Once you establish that life exists, the theory holds...and clearly life did come into existence (no matter which way).

PS: That chimp is cute. Free tip though...if a chimp ever runs towards you, dodge...they seem small, but they're pure muscle and can knock a grown adult off his feet. I'm 6ft2 and fell over when a semi-adolescent chimp jump into my arms after running towards me. Also, their teeth are actually quite scary when they get excited. Still love monkeys, they're so similar to us in many ways. They mourn their dead, use tools, and use speech to communicate.
edit on 16-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


...Chimpanzees are apes and most definitively not our ancestors as we can actually trace the genetics of where we diverged.

But you're more interested in humor than honest discourse.

Once more:

How would a supernatural cause of life prevent evolution from happening?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Another reason why monkeys are similar to us...they do random stuff for no reason other than pure fun. Very few animals do stuff that isn't related to survival, reproduction, and getting food.



In this case, the monkey has fun. There's no other logical reason why it would put itself in danger like that.

They also have sex just for fun and conflict resolution. If you ever had a gf, angry sex is pretty good in my experience and helps to resolve issues. Oh, and what's more, they even have gay sex




Very human like...we too have sex for pure fun and not only reproduction. In fact, it's mostly for fun as most parents don't have more than 1-2 kids.
edit on 16-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So now we're going from talking about the actual subject to discussing sources?


Kinda desperate move...one could think you ran out of real arguments...


no - just asking if the source is valid.

Do you still disagree with others and on uva3021's side on this? That TalkOrigins.org is not a valid evolution website? If not any recomendation? I have my own but to be fair - I would like to use yours. Any offer?

The website I posted is nothing like TalkOrigins for it was a government journal, and if you can't see the difference then might I suggest jumping into a lake.

TalkOrigins may be a great resource for the basics of evolution and how it works, but the website was created to address the "debate" on Creationism/Evolution, whatever that means. It seems odd to me you think the mention of God on that particular website validates divine intervention, or lessens any possible abiogenesis theories. If I made a website to compare the theory of gravity to earth sucking (stealing the analogy from another poster) and happened to mention earth sucking as a possibility for appropriating downward, would this validate earth sucking?

Once again, actions and theories are two different things. Studying the proteins contained in the seminal fluid of one species of drosophila is organic chemistry, but studying how one species of drosophila diverged into a new species and thenceforth adapted is evolution. Two different fields of science, one continuous process. Everything is one continuous process.

Abiogenesis and evolution is one continuous process. Two separate fields of study. If it weren't one continuous process then some sort of supernatural entity would be the purveyor of existence. But we are still allowed to have different fields of study and theories.
edit on 16-2-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I just had to S&F one of Blue Jays threads, the world is ending


Fox "News" is really great at making fools of themselves lately. First O'Reilly's "the tide goes in...the tide goes out...never a miscommunication...ergo god exists" hogwash, then Beck's lunatic way of claiming the revolution in Egypt is bad, and now they mislead viewers on purpose by editing videos to the point where they completely misrepresent the truth.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's an awesome video thanks for that.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





...Chimpanzees are apes and most definitively not our ancestors as we can actually trace the genetics of where we diverged.


Sure maybe this is more to your liking then, which one is your great uncle?




Top row, from left to right:
Australopithecus anamensis (lived 4.2 to 3.8 million years ago)
Kenyanthropus platyops (lived 3.5 to 3.2 million years ago)
Australopithecus afarensis (lived 3.7 to 2.9 million years ago, one of those was called "Lucy")

Middle row, from left to right:
Australopithecus africanus (lived 3 to 2 million years ago)
Homo rudolfensis (lived 2.5 to 1.8 million years ago)
Homo habilis (lived 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago)

Bottom row, from left to right:
Paranthropus boisei (lived 2.5 to 1.1 million years ago)
Homo erectus (lived 1.8 to 300,000 years ago)
Homo neanderthalensis (lived 400,000 to 30,000 years ago)

edit on 16-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Starting to discern a trend now eh Bluejay? Pictures demonstrate an obvious gradient towards modern humans, for better or for worse, by descent with modification

aka Evolution

(although we didn't really evolve from neanderthals, just have a some DNA particulates from interbreeding)
edit on 17-2-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Starting to discern a trend now eh Bluejay? Pictures demonstrate an obvious gradient towards modern humans, for better or for worse, by descent with modification

aka Evolution

No.

It's still a case of:
"Hee hew, all yer evolutionist dummies think y'all had monkeys for grandmamas. An I reckon yer prolly right. Muahahaha!"



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Well, aside from Neanderthals, the current consensus is that they all represent members of our evolutionary lineage. There's a bit of an issue with Neanderthals, but we'll just have to wait for the science to sort that one out.

Of course, I must ask again:

How would a supernatural origin of life prevent evolution from occurring?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
changing the color of your question will I predict have little to no effect.

Perhaps try Latin



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





...Chimpanzees are apes and most definitively not our ancestors as we can actually trace the genetics of where we diverged.


Sure maybe this is more to your liking then, which one is your great uncle?


Well, "great-uncle" is needlessly humorous, but paranthropus boisei is the one on that list that is the last true ancestor to homo sapiens. Homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis weren't our ancestors, but they were closely related to us.

...What? You thought showing us reconstructions of our preceding species would make us go "nuh-uh, we aren't descended from those!"?

Do you actually know anything about evolution?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





How would a supernatural origin of life prevent evolution from occurring?


I have answered this many times perhaps in other threads.

It wasn't designed to evolve/adapt beyond the simple life form it was created as. The only time a single celled creature grows beyond it's original state is when it is designed to do so. For example a single cell goes from that to a fully developed human in nine months because that was it's design.

Madness you remind of a certain Star Wars character, his name was Admiral Motti, do you remember what was said to him because he was so cynical?
Did the man in his arrogant pride learn the hard way?
You are a Star Wars fan so I am thinking you know exactly what I am talking about.

If you don't, just ask me to post the video of the clip I am referring to.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join