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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Look, you can google "how to build a window" and build it without any knowledge about the fundament of the house.

You don't need to know how the fundament is built, it could be magic, a giant space monkey farting it into existence, god, or a random worker. That doesn't mean you don't know how to build a window!!

That's why evolution is a scientific theory, we know it works that way...and what caused the first life to form is 100% inconsequential for the process of evolution


Now, I think the real issue isn't abiogenesis, it's you questioning your own belief as you realize evolution completely debunks the literal interpretation of the genesis account. Sorry that reality bursts your bubble

edit on 26-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
If the totality of the concept of evolution requires so many different biological theories, how is that superior to the theory of intelligent design?.


It's superior because it explains complex events scientifically.

"Intelligent design" is not a theory and explains nothing. Unless you believe that "Magic Man done it!" is a suitable explanation.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
If the totality of the concept of evolution requires so many different biological theories, how is that superior to the theory of intelligent design?.


It's superior because it explains complex events scientifically.

"Intelligent design" is not a theory and explains nothing. Unless you believe that "Magic Man done it!" is a suitable explanation.


To the contrary, using your logic or illogic - abiogenesis explains complex events - magically.

For how can non-life create life? Please explain?

On the other hand there's intelligence in all Creation, which according to scientific fact - intelligence require a mind, a mind, a body - an entity: an Intelligent Creator.

Of course to evolutionists - this is nonsense because we all "poof" from nothing millions of millions of years ago thru some cosmic random/nonrandom unguided process called (the god of) CHANCE.

-- primordial (organic) soup anyone?

ciao,
edmc2

SF Blue_Jay

edit on 26-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: sf



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





For how can non-life create life? Please explain?


No one can say for sure how (yet)...and no, "god did it" isn't an explanation


The world is complex, and not everyone is happy with a "dumbed-down for the masses god did it" answer that has zero scientific evidence as backup


And like has been mentioned before, you certainly don't need to know how life started to explain how evolution works.



On the other hand there's intelligence in all Creation, which according to scientific fact - intelligence require a mind, a mind, a body - an entity: an Intelligent Creator.


Intelligence...suuuuuure




If the purpose was to create a nice place just for us, and if there was a creator, the universe could be called "epic fail"

edit on 26-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
this is nonsense because we all "poof" from nothing millions of millions of years ago thru some cosmic random/nonrandom unguided process called (the god of) CHANCE.


We actually know for a fact that random mutation occurs. I don't understand what you're trying to argue here, other than blatantly denying the evidence.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by edmc^2
this is nonsense because we all "poof" from nothing millions of millions of years ago thru some cosmic random/nonrandom unguided process called (the god of) CHANCE.


We actually know for a fact that random mutation occurs. I don't understand what you're trying to argue here, other than blatantly denying the evidence.


Science: "The evidence leads us to this conclusion."
Religion: "This is the conclusion, now how can we twist stuff to make it fit the conclusion."

Evolution doesn't fit their "conclusion" so it can't be right



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
To the contrary, using your logic or illogic - abiogenesis explains complex events - magically.

For how can non-life create life? Please explain?


I responded to a question about evolution, not abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is not fully understood at this point. However, Magic Man doesn't seem to be part of the equation since he appears to be non-existent.


On the other hand there's intelligence in all Creation, which according to scientific fact - intelligence require a mind, a mind, a body - an entity: an Intelligent Creator.


The universe is not a creation and there's not intelligence in all of it. Your claims rest on faulty premises.


Of course to evolutionists - this is nonsense because we all "poof" from nothing millions of millions of years ago thru some cosmic random/nonrandom unguided process called (the god of) CHANCE.


Big bang cosmology has nothing to do with evolution or "evolutionists", whatever that is.

Again, faulty assumptions. I know of no theory that states that things "poofed" from nothing. That's what creationists believe. In fact, there's no evidence that "nothing" is the default state of the universe. Also, I know of no scientist that states it's all due to chance. That's a common claim from creationists yet I've never seen anyone source a scientist saying such a thing.

You are a poor ambassador to science denial and "intelligent design", a.k.a. creationism in a cheap tuxedo.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



...For how can non-life create life? Please explain?


life can only come from life?

it is a difficult question to disagree with, but i am going to go with "no".

i read a very compelling article recently (i will find a link if you wish) which argued that life must necessarily have arisen completely spontaneously. conversely, if a living form were ever created, then its livingness would be fundamentally a condition of its creators life. this creates an infinite regression.

take a computer, for example. if somehow by some miracle of technology we are able to generate computer software that is "self-aware", it still probably wouldnt be alive. this is simply because its living-ness would be a sub-set of our own human livingness.

the more-simple and less-obvious answer is that "it just did". no how. no why. no explanation needed.

from a personal perspective it makes sense simply because one of the most pronounced aspects of my own conscious activity is that it seems to be totally spontaneous.


so my final answer is: life came from no-life. there i said it.

 


yes, this is a repost. i answered this question, posed by you, in another thread. did you ignore me on purpose?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Mass confusion in this thread by many. I don't think there has ever been a scientist in history that has stated organic life has arisen from nothing. Do people not understand what a living thing is? Its an assortment of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen, binding together in order to calibrate as a template sufficient enough to replicate. All life is made up of non-living elements. Debating this is apropos to debating whether or not a wooden chair is made from wood.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
...calibrate as a template sufficient enough to replicate....


is that poetry? because it sure aint science.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey.


You know Madness childish hyperbole's add nothing to the discussion, just saying.

But even if we give you Abiogenesis as being an unknown and not part of Evolution we are still only at that one little prokaryote. The enormity of the gap between that ONE prokaryote to TWO humans is illustrated below.

From This







To This





I am a very logical person, doesn't anybody else see what's wrong with this?

edit on 27-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Basically happened to you already, and it only took 9 months. Imagine what 4.5 billion years of evolution could do



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





the first life forms were vomited into existence by a hungover magic space donkey.


You know Madness childish hyperbole's add nothing to the discussion, just saying.

But even if we give you Abiogenesis as being an unknown and not part of Evolution we are still only at that one little prokaryote. The enormity of the gap between that ONE prokaryote to TWO humans is illustrated below.

From This







To This





I am a very logical person, doesn't anybody else see what's wrong with this?

edit on 27-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


I don't see anything wrong with it, but I do see what is great and wonderful about it regarding the dynamics of a constantly moving biosphere that interacts with each of it's own trillions of billions of parts - including the constituent cells of a singular entity and the discreet subsets of life that have inhabited the same tiny planet which have been interacting with their own ecosystems intimately for billions of years to spawn something so great within itself that has the ability to study, question, observe, learn, and grow.

... and then there is you.


edit on 27-1-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




For how can non-life create life? Please explain?


Life is primarily chemical processes all of which are perfectly natural. So life arose from chemical processes. There is no question that it could happen naturally, the question is merely how it DID in fact happen naturally (there are a number of competing components). Non-life did not "create" life, life arose from the conditions of the early Earth via natural processes.

Now you can choose to believe a God commanded life to come into existence out of a pile of dirt using magic but there simply isn't any evidence of that and give that magic is certainly the most extraordinary claim of the two I'm inclined to side with the scientists who's hypotheses do not involve magic.



Of course to evolutionists - this is nonsense because we all "poof" from nothing millions of millions of years ago thru some cosmic random/nonrandom unguided process called (the god of) CHANCE.


I love the way you strawman abiogenesis here and say "poof"... I love it when Creationists use the word poof and make fun of Evolution and Abiogenesis by claiming it sounds as if it happened by magic. How exactly would that be a valid criticism of abiogenesis when your own position advocates that creation was by magic? Obviously you're being purposefully deceitful here as you know very well that abiogenesis does not involve any "poofing" and actually involves gradual natural chemical processes. When your own hypothesis on the origin of life involves seven days, two naked people and a talking snake I don't think you're in a position to claim that science is the one invoking magic.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 
yeah just reading over it, was a poor choice of verbiage, not sure it was even syntactically correct, which should be shameful coming from an English teacher

how about any piece of cellular material that can serve as a unit of natural selection

was just trying to make the point everything is a essentially a CHON component, its all the bonding of chemicals



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by edmc^2
 



... For how can non-life create life? Please explain?


life can only come from life?

it is a difficult question to disagree with, but i am going to go with "no".

i read a very compelling article recently (i will find a link if you wish) which argued that life must necessarily have arisen completely spontaneously. conversely, if a living form were ever created, then its livingness would be fundamentally a condition of its creators life. this creates an infinite regression.

take a computer, for example. if somehow by some miracle of technology we are able to generate computer software that is "self-aware", it still probably wouldnt be alive. this is simply because its living-ness would be a sub-set of our own human livingness.

the more-simple and less-obvious answer is that "it just did". no how. no why. no explanation needed.

from a personal perspective it makes sense simply because one of the most pronounced aspects of my own conscious activity is that it seems to be totally spontaneous.


so my final answer is: life came from no-life. there i said it.

 


yes, this is a repost. i answered this question, posed by you, in another thread. did you ignore me on purpose?


No, not ignoring you - I was just looking for a more logical/scientific answer.

So let's try this one more time:

Explain please how can non-life create life?

Your example started with a living entity ("we are able to generate") - creating a non-living thing (computer software).

OK?

Here's the latest report on the quest to re-create life out of nothing.


“As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. ..... – snipit from wiki link provided below.


en.wikipedia.org...

BTW - I recommend that you read this link - he's one the best recognized biologist/scientist/evolutionists in the world trying to recreate life out of nothing.
So far....

www.sciencenews.org...


ciao,
edmc2



edit on 27-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: remove "poof" belongs to another post



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 



I love the way you strawman abiogenesis here and say "poof"... I love it when Creationists use the word poof and make fun of Evolution and Abiogenesis by claiming it sounds as if it happened by magic. How exactly would that be a valid criticism of abiogenesis when your own position advocates that creation was by magic? Obviously you're being purposefully deceitful here as you know very well that abiogenesis does not involve any "poofing" and actually involves gradual natural chemical processes. When your own hypothesis on the origin of life involves seven days, two naked people and a talking snake I don't think you're in a position to claim that science is the one invoking magic.


Unfortunately I was not the originator of the concept - that is, how life "poof" or "pop into existence". I got it from a video created on a website explaning how life "poof" or "pop into existence" by one on the best recognized biologist/evolutionist around - Prof. Jack Szostak .

Here's what it said:


"By creating vesicles containing proto-genetic material (depicted in this computer graphic), researchers are trying to watch life pop into existence"


www.sciencenews.org...


ciao,
edmc2


edit on 27-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: how life "poof" or "pop into existence" - replace link



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





Basically happened to you already, and it only took 9 months. Imagine what 4.5 billion years of evolution could do


Ummm, No, big difference we all have biological parents with all the genetic codes already in place ready to be used for creating an embryo. The example I used has to continually and accurately fabricate new and complex genetic code X 2, one for each sex, and developing in perfect parallel. So that they can copulate and reproduce before the species dies out. And how would a evolutionary developing species that had always been asexual for unknown eons, even know when to suddenly change it's method of reproducing?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



"By creating vesicles containing proto-genetic material (depicted in this computer graphic), researchers are trying to watch life pop into existence"


Its just a journalistic hyperbole for the sake of the article. They obviously didnt mean it literally popped into existence or required some magical process to appear.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I can assure you that when Dr. Janet Iwasa says "pop" she isn't referring to a magical transition. We're talking about natural chemical processes here. In the case of the experiment in the article we're dealing with vesicles that had already been filled with proto-genetic material - as in we're dealing with only one stage of the chain from non-living organic material to life. At no point is there a suggestion that life on early Earth poofed into existence from non-life.

If you doubt what I say feel free to email the scientist who made the quote and ask her about it.

Janet Iwasa
edit on 27-1-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join