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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Since when did geometry evolve?

From my angle... -I see it as the theories of evolution only explain how living stuff are made, not why. A cinnamon-bun has by intelligent design evolved from flour, yeast, sugar, butter, and spices to become a delicious entity of its own, but since it can not reproduce itself it is bound to live in symbiosis with humans...

My point here is that one species can have more than one origin!
Not just the classic linear squirrel->monkey->man->god or god->angel->man->gorilla->chimp->..., but a little cat, some pig, a little bit of yeti, and add some ox, but if the dog had not chased the cat to begin with - they had not met the pig!

Why does everybody's theories about evolution have to be linear?
.....

What about inbreed? You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grands, 16 greatx2, 32 greatx3, 64 greatx5,... and so on. So if we put on twenty years for each generation, there have been no inbreeding along the way; you would have 8589934592* ThirtyTwoTimes-GreatGrandparents that supposedly lived about 660 years ago!! (you'd probably be related to King Edward III) -And that is the reason why it is probable that your greatgreatgreatgreat grandmother was a goat!

* that is:2^33 = 8 billion, 589 million, 934 thousand and 592 individuals! And in 1960 the world was populated by about 6 billions....
edit on 27-1-2011 by nakiel because: plain humanoid stupidity




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Well, we use the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, the big bang theory, cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, circuit theory, etc...and that's without getting into specific fields. Those are just the commonly known theories. Here are some more: plate tectonic theory, kinetic molecular theory, quantum theory. I can actually provide a whole host of them.

Exactly science has theory that is not proof of anything. I believe God created the earth it may not be how the story was told to us but science hasnt told the truth on everything through history either.

From a laymans point of through science taught in public and private education ill tell you how the theory of evolution doesnt make any sense. Suppose something near the big bang theory happened millions of years go by and the earth is formed. Where did the bacteria or single celled organisms come from lets say they were floating around space. Now they begin to multipy they are organic whats the best they are going to make themselves into moss. So why isnt moss multiplying into a cockroach or a rat or a frog or fish now. Further more what gave these single celled organisms the desire to morph from what they originally were. Lets start off with a rat believe it or not they are highly tuned organisms hell bent on survival thats why they are still here that and mass breeding. So lets say they all made it up to dinosaurs no man was formed then I suppose. I was told that roachs and rats basicall lived and maybe fish what particular strain did humanoids evolve from why did monkeys stop at monkeys why arent all apes humans if this theory is true animals evolve at a snail pace why didnt everything continue to evolve into highly intelligent organisms and not just humans. Il even throw in the possibility of extraterestrial intervention because even some humans are on a different playing fielsd from the rest of us just evolution I suppose.
edit on 27-1-2011 by teotwawki77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
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?

I am simply amazed at how you can continue to show ignorance in thread after thread after thread. All questions you put up are well researched, and it is as easy as going to Wikipedia: Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction for answers to your questions. And even though you get great answers there, that are well founded in maaany years of research, you still stick to your blind beliefs (And new threads that keeps popping up..).



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I do empathize with you BlueJay, I really do. But look at it this way... we have accepted as science fact the universe itself started from nothing: from a point of nothing to millions [billions?] of light years across in a fraction of a second, defying all current knowledge or understanding, so would it also not be acceptable to take at face value life on earth also began from nothing?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



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.


It's not childish, it's warranted hyperbole and you are still dodging the question. It also adds humor, humor isn't nothing as it keeps some of us sane during these tedious threads where we have to keep explaining the same point over and over again.



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.


...so....you just gave up the very title of this thread and are moving on to something else? I'm sorry, but you can't say 'even if we give you' when you've given me no reason for you to be dismissive in that manner. It's not 'even if', it's a logical given.

Once more, please prove your thread title. How would a supernatural cause for life disprove evolution?



The enormity of the gap between that ONE prokaryote to TWO humans is illustrated below.






That is a representation of 3,000,054,528 pennies. The gap between a single prokaryote and Homo sapiens sapiens is about 3,500,000,000 years.

When you consider the process described by the following image taking place over 3.5 billion years...it's not all that hard to believe. (found here in this post by tgidkp in another thread, credit where credit is due)





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


Your argument is far from logical, as it is an argument from personal incredulity.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by teotwawki77
 



Originally posted by teotwawki77
Exactly science has theory that is not proof of anything.


I'm sorry...but those scientific theories are proven. If they weren't proven we wouldn't have all sorts of things. The theory of relativity is applied with GPS satellites to calibrate them daily. Circuit theory is used in the computer system that you are currently using.



I believe God created the earth it may not be how the story was told to us


Believe what you want. It's not proven.



but science hasnt told the truth on everything through history either.


Yes, and science is the first to admit its faults and then change with the evidence. Religion shows extreme resistance to this sort of thing.



From a laymans point of through science taught in public and private education ill tell you how the theory of evolution doesnt make any sense.


...let's hear it..



Suppose something near the big bang theory happened millions of years go by and the earth is formed.


Billions of years ago. And the Earth was formed about 9 billion years after the big bang...



Where did the bacteria or single celled organisms come from lets say they were floating around space.


That would be the idea of panspermia...which isn't proven at all nor is it the mainstream idea.



Now they begin to multipy they are organic whats the best they are going to make themselves into moss.


No...not at all....



So why isnt moss multiplying into a cockroach or a rat or a frog or fish now.


Because that's not how evolution works. It's modifications over generations. The change happens from one generation to the next. Moss changes, but to make the jump between not just species, genus, family, class...no, you're talking about a change to kingdom. Plants don't evolve into animals in an observable time period. What you're proposing would disprove evolution.



Further more what gave these single celled organisms the desire to morph from what they originally were.


There was no desire and they didn't 'morph'. There was a genetic mutation. Probably one that created colony organisms.



Lets start off with a rat believe it or not they are highly tuned organisms hell bent on survival thats why they are still here that and mass breeding.


Ok...the genus of rattus.



So lets say they all made it up to dinosaurs no man was formed then I suppose.


Let's say? What evidence is there that modern rats were around over 65 million years ago?



I was told that roachs and rats basicall lived


Roaches? Sure, some extinct species of roach were alive. I'm not sure about rats...but I know there were rodents...but nothing modern.



and maybe fish


Fish were around...just no modern species. Even the 'living fossil' the coelacanth is significantly different from the ancient ancestor.



what particular strain did humanoids evolve from


They evolved from an early mammal...



why did monkeys stop at monkeys


Because evolution is oriented to survival not to intelligence.



why arent all apes humans if this theory is true animals evolve at a snail pace why didnt everything continue to evolve into highly intelligent organisms and not just humans.


Because evolution is oriented to survival, not to intelligence.



Il even throw in the possibility of extraterestrial intervention because even some humans are on a different playing fielsd from the rest of us just evolution I suppose.


That's just variation within a species. We have nearly 7 billion people, we're going to get some really exceptional individuals in such a group. Just like you get some horses that are insanely fast.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


...no, the universe didn't start out as nothing, it started out as a bunch of something in no space. There was matter but no space. Not nothing. Please, don't bring cosmology into a discussion of biology.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Incorrect. But you know better, don't you.

The problem here, and it's a universal one, is arrogance. But you can be forgiven yours as it's a singular human trait and one of which we're all guilty of from time to time. Your absolute faith in our Grand Science astonishes me, but carry on.
edit on 27-1-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ok thankyou for your answers I can tell you are a devout believer in science with no intervention what so ever from any other life form.

So one more question are the species on the planet now going to evolve into possibly smarter beings than they are now? You give answers but your answers are just like my answers from religeon they are guess's that may or may have not happen. So in turn you are having faith in science just like I am in a higher power neither one of us can prove it but we can believe what it has taught us.

It would be nice to have the answers but we simply dont (for now) but I will leave it at that.

Your civility however does give me a new respect for some people from your plane of thinking.
edit on 27-1-2011 by teotwawki77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by teotwawki77
 



Originally posted by teotwawki77
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ok thankyou for your answers I can tell you are a devout believer in science with no intervention what so ever from any other life form.


There's no devotion. Science works without devotion. In fact, I think a quote from the great Carl Sagan says it best:


In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
- Carl Sagan, Keynote address at CSICOP conference (1987)




So one more question are the species on the planet now going to evolve into possibly smarter beings than they are now?


As I already said twice, evolution doesn't work towards intelligence or being smart, it works towards survival. There may be the evolution of other intelligent life forms on Earth, there might not be. There is no way to accurately predict the evolutionary future of any species that I am aware of. Basically, I don't know.



You give answers but your answers are just like my answers from religeon they are guess's that may or may have not happen.


I just said "I don't know". The problem with your statement is that religion doesn't have the same basis in evidence that science does. Science may be a series of 'guesses', but they're incredibly good guesses based on evidence. They're the sort of guesses that give us computers and modern medicine.



So in turn you are having faith in science just like I am in a higher power neither one of us can prove it but we can believe what it has taught us.


Have you never taken a science class? I routinely would learn something in my science classes and then run experiments that proved what we were taught. We learned about drag and wind resistance and other such things in physics...and then tested them by chucking things off of buildings in a controlled way. We learned about chemical reactions and then actually tested those reactions.

I can prove science. I can prove anything that is established if you give me enough time.



It would be nice to have the answers but we simply dont (for now) but I will leave it at that.


You have a computer. You are communicating with me via electrical impulses over thousands of miles. That is proven science at work. We have the answers whether or not you acknowledge them. Sure, we don't have the answers for everything, but we're working on it.



Your civility however does give me a new respect for some people from your plane of thinking.


Thank you, your civility is appreciated as well.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Yes well I have done science experiments I have also done religeous experiments and over come amzing odds over the human playing field with others. Religeon has had proofs to me not proofs that I could communicate accurately to others but just a way of things working out in my favor where in most instances they do not. And I do not go to church or believe in organized religeon not that im against it I just do not participate.

The problem is in all reality I just believe in a power and have felt a power but i try not to leave my self to my own guesses.

An old man once told me dont believe anything you hear and half of what you see.

everything is open to interpretation.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

From This


To This



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


Yes. You need extremely simple answers to big questions because learning and thinking is more work than you're willing to do.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Incorrect. But you know better, don't you.

The problem here, and it's a universal one, is arrogance. But you can be forgiven yours as it's a singular human trait and one of which we're all guilty of from time to time. Your absolute faith in our Grand Science astonishes me, but carry on.
edit on 27-1-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)


Science doesn't require faith because we have evidence to back up our claims. If there's no 100% solid evidence, they call it a "hypothesis"



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


You are completely ignoring the timeframe of a FEW BILLION YEARS!!



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
we have accepted as science fact the universe itself started from nothing: from a point of nothing to millions [billions?] of light years across in a fraction of a second, defying all current knowledge or understanding, so would it also not be acceptable to take at face value life on earth also began from nothing?


Ummm.

There is no "science fact" that the universe started from nothing. It definitely is not acceptable to take at face value the notion that life also began from nothing.

Perhaps if creationists removed "nothing" and "chance" from their lexicon they might eventually bring a valid point forth.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 



Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Incorrect. But you know better, don't you.


How am I incorrect? Please show me anywhere in scientific literature where it is posited that we went from nothing to something and that is the end of it.



The problem here, and it's a universal one, is arrogance.


I'm sorry, but how am I being arrogant in accepting a self-testing system that regularly updates its knowledge base with new evidence and arranges its ideas to fit with the evidence rather than arranging the evidence to fit with the ideas?



But you can be forgiven yours as it's a singular human trait and one of which we're all guilty of from time to time.


So...I'm arrogant. Yet you're making an unsupported assertion, I dispute it, you say I'm incorrect and arrogant...

How am I arrogant again?



Your absolute faith in our Grand Science astonishes me, but carry on.


No faith needed. You can test science. You can demonstrate how scientific principles work.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


3.5 billion years. If each year was a penny it would take 17.5 school buses worth of pennies to account for that number (which is why I dug up a nice visualization in my post).

Of course, there are some standard rebuttals to this...I wonder which one is going to be pulled out while consistently ignoring the actual title of this thread which has been demonstrated as thoroughly false.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 





I am simply amazed at how you can continue to show ignorance in thread after thread after thread. All questions you put up are well researched


Be amazed then, because your perspective of ignorance is opinion, and look at the very first line of your quoted link from WIki


the evolution of sexual reproduction is currently described by several competing scientific hypotheses.


In in other words we really don't know how. They are just hypotheses. I scientific guess, at around the level that people of science once thought that the earth was flat.
So it is a logical question to be considered, just because it is fully settled in your mind doesn't mean it is for everybody.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulHow am I incorrect? Please show me anywhere in scientific literature where it is posited that we went from nothing to something and that is the end of it.
Incorrect because in your previous post you off-handedly dismissed any notion of relating two very important & inter-linked questions mankind has been seeking the answers to since creation itself; ie the origins of species and that of our known universe. Both are inexplicably linked, whether you like it or not. Why do you think all the great minds are searching for the one, binding, Theory of Everything in an attempt to rationally explain our own existence.


I'm sorry, but how am I being arrogant in accepting a self-testing system that regularly updates its knowledge base with new evidence and arranges its ideas to fit with the evidence rather than arranging the evidence to fit with the ideas?
Ahhh, your self-testing belief system. One which works fine for Newton's world of mechanics, but gets misty when we start poking around at the quantum level. What you consistently fail to acknowledge is that of all those billions of stars, the matter we can account for makes up only 5% of what's out there. When you finally grasp that you'll realize your understanding of our Grand Science is indeed very arrogant, as we know only an infinitesimally small fraction of what is, infact, knowable. In that sense our own science, and your perception of it, is very crude indeed. And to put it up there on some kind of intellectual pedestal is arrogance in itself.


So...I'm arrogant. Yet you're making an unsupported assertion, I dispute it, you say I'm incorrect and arrogant...How am I arrogant again?
See above.


No faith needed. You can test science. You can demonstrate how scientific principles work.
It is a faith or belief system and your attempt to warp the semantics is testament to your absolute belief in it. Mathematical modeling is central to the our endeavours in pushing back the boundaries of modern science, and although a beautiful language initself, much is still Theoretical, there are no Newtonian, repeatable experiments here, just plain math itself. If you're about to cite advances in 'modern medicine' as another example of how brilliant our science is, don't, ... it isn't... it's still very crude. We also still burn fossil fuels to drive turbines, that's pretty crude too... so in many respects, your absolute science is still living in the Steam Age.

We know bugger all really, m8 ... so please don't try and pretend we do.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Incorrect. But you know better, don't you.

The problem here, and it's a universal one, is arrogance. But you can be forgiven yours as it's a singular human trait and one of which we're all guilty of from time to time. Your absolute faith in our Grand Science astonishes me, but carry on.
edit on 27-1-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



FINALLY, somebody new to this discussion speaks the truth, thanks for joining the discussion chocise, and a star for you too.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join