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.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





You do realize that wasn't the point he was trying to make by asking his question, right? Here's why nylonase is further proof of evolution: LINK


Wait...wait...bacteria eating man made products is proof of evolution. Hahahahaha...

thanks for the laugh Mr. XYZ.

so did the nylonyse or the bacteria eating nylon turned into something different or is it still a bacteria?

Nope - zeys:




bacteria capable of hydrolysing nylon were found in wastewater from nylon plants.


Fact that there are other bacterias used in many industry shows the fact that they come with different abilities.

But guess what - they are still bacteria not your missing missing granpa - then again, being that evlutionists are so gullible it might be your long lost granpa.




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
 

So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?


hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.

The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.

Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!



Except...we just refuted those "problems". Again, you don't need C14 to date fossils


So you use radiometric dating, correct?

Why?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I give up. It is painfully obvious that the OP knows NOTHING about Biological Evolution, and instead is content in using misapprehensions about evolution as arguments against it.

If you decide to actually read and study the subject, I would be more than willing to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I won't hold my breath on that one.

You CANNOT deny that things start simple, and work towards complexity.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
To end on the nylon point:

These bacterium needed to evolve to handle Nylon. As Nylon is NOT naturally occuring, there is no need to be able to eat through it. Once Nylon was invented, there was a reason. So, the bacterium evolved to be able to handle the nylon. Evolution doesn't meant that you cease to be the organism you were originally, it just means that you have ADAPTED.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Clearly you didn't read the nylonase article I linked, or else you'd realize how dumb your post is





So you use radiometric dating, correct?


Yes, and there's a ton of different methods that allow us to accurately date fossils without actually dating with C14



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
 

So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?


hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.

The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.

Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!



Again. C14 is not used to date things that are millions of years old, thus your (baseless) criticism of it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Are you ever going to answer my questions?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I have to give edmc props for his avatar though...it's very ironic, like mine, or Stephen Hawking using a Mike Tyson avatar, or Hitler using a Mother Teresa avatar



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I have to give edmc props for his avatar though...it's very ironic, like mine, or Stephen Hawking using a Mike Tyson avatar, or Hitler using a Mother Teresa avatar


E = m c 2 -a fascinating formula that unlocks the mystery of the Universe.




“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2
 

So much stuff about C14 dating, although it's not really relevant in any way when it comes to dating of fossils, which are millions of years old. Try again. Also, you failed to answer all the questions I posed. Try that again too. Or you can't?


....



Again. C14 is not used to date things that are millions of years old, thus your (baseless) criticism of it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Are you ever going to answer my questions?


"C14 is not used to date things that are millions of years old" because they CAN'T.

C14 like I said only last around 5700 years. Since "fossils" are just mineral deposits thus when they turn into "rocks" - they will retain the long-live radioactive isotopes, like 'rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.

Thus like I said - a statement like "150 million year old fossil" is not accurate because the "fossil" is NOT the actual (once living) carbon life-form but a replica of the original life-form formed by sediments.

See lithification:


”Slowly the weight of the sediment compacts the underlying areas, pressing the grains together, driving excess water out, and depositing minerals in the pores, and ultimately turning the soft sediment to hard rock - a process known as lithification.”


But if you really know your science - you should know this.

As to your qs,

I thought I've already answered them. If you missed them - here they are again:


“were so virtually indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to concede that they were humans,” -- book Lucy, p. 29.

“ ...“dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” ...

Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.” - Popular Science, “How Old Is It?” by Robert Gannon, November 1979, p. 81

“Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” -- The Fate of the Earth, by Jonathan Schell, 1982, p. 181.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

In short there are NO clear and evident "transitional fossils" - changing from one form to another. All you've got is speculation and interpretation of the data.

In fact I read once that a Swedish botanist named Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research:


“It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” - Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p. 1212.


Today:


Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[38]

Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that have ever existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.[39]

The fossil record is very uneven and, with few exceptions, is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no fossil record.[38] The groups considered to have a good fossil record, including a number of transitional fossils between traditional groups, are the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the brachiopods and some groups of arthropods.[40]--en.wikipedia.org...


There u go.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
To end on the nylon point:

These bacterium needed to evolve to handle Nylon. As Nylon is NOT naturally occuring, there is no need to be able to eat through it. Once Nylon was invented, there was a reason. So, the bacterium evolved to be able to handle the nylon. Evolution doesn't meant that you cease to be the organism you were originally, it just means that you have ADAPTED.





These bacterium needed to evolve to handle Nylon.


This is what I call "baloney" sandwich! The fact that living things have the ability to ADAPT to their circumstance and environment doesn't mean this is ORGANIC EVOLUTION.

Virus adapt yet they are still virus, birds adapt yet they are still birds, people adapt yet they are still humans.

Like Eskimos, for instance. Did they acquire adaptation to a cold climate by evolutionary process? Or, at the opposite extreme, did evolution prepare only people with dark skin to live in the warm tropical climates?

Answer of course is No!

Reason why they can't change into something different is the genetic boundary within each living "kind".

And this is what makes me wonder about proponents of the ORGANIC evolution theory - a little change here and there - right away evolution. A big change here / there right away evolution. Micro-evolution instead adaptation.

Just because the bacterium is "able to handle the nylon" does not necessarily mean that it (organically) evolved but that it's able to ingest man-made materials.

But if this convinces you that it 'NEEDED" to evolve then more power to you - I'm not that gullible.

In any case if this is evolution to you - what kind of evolution is it then? Micro - or Macro?

That is if the current definition of - Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. -- en.wikipedia.org...

know what I mean?

Edit:

BTW: when you said "NEEDED" - did IT thought to itself that it NEEDED to evolved? Was it thinking or day-dreaming that IT NEEDED to evolve?

Curious tho know.


edit on 7-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: Edit



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
I give up. It is painfully obvious that the OP knows NOTHING about Biological Evolution, and instead is content in using misapprehensions about evolution as arguments against it.

If you decide to actually read and study the subject, I would be more than willing to have an intelligent conversation with you, but I won't hold my breath on that one.

You CANNOT deny that things start simple, and work towards complexity.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So c14 dating is accurate around it's half-life - great for carbon life-forms.


That old argument again, really?


We don't have to date the actual fossil if all the earth/rock around it can be dated much more accurately. Because if all the rock/earth around the fossil is of the same age, it makes perfect sense that the fossil is of the same age. That is, unless you're completely bat# crazy and believe in nonsense like god(s) beaming the fossils there to "test people's faith".


Yes "That old argument again" because you keep forgetting you keep forgetting that the earth crust is dynamic - NOT static. It cycles the rocks.

Notice in case you forget:


Chapter 12:

Recycling the Earth's Crust Rocks at the surface of the Earth are of many different ages, ranging from over 3 billion years old to less than 1 million years old. Because under ordinary circumstance matter can neither be created or destroyed, the new, younger rocks must have originated from older crustal material - older rocks. Older rocks are destroyed by weathering processes and the remains are recycled into new rocks. This cycle from old rocks to new rocks is called the rock cycle.


Also:


Rocks are heated, metamorphosed, melted, weathered, sediment is transported, deposited and lithified, then it may be metamorphosed again in yet another cycle. This recycling of the material of the Earth's crust has been going on for billions of years, as far back as there is a preserved geologic record (about 4 billion years). The diagram above represents the different processes involved in the rock cycle. Weathering and erosion at the earth's surface can break down rocks into small bits. These can be deposited as sediments that become sedimentary rocks. Burial, with rising pressure and temperature, can alter sedimentary (as well as any other) rocks to form metamorphic rocks. Continued rise in temperature can eventually melt rocks and produce magma. Cooling of magmas leads to igneous rocks, etc.


www.indiana.edu...

In other words - what's old is new and what new is old depending on the recycle stage / time. So if your "fossil" - get's recycled over and and over then the data gathered - date - is subject to interpretation.

But as far the ORIGINAL carbon base life form - let me repeat - it's long gone - replaced by minerals.

Now why you don't get this I don't know - must be your blind spot.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Daemonicon
 


You people are hopeless - I thought you have the facts but it's turning out to be the opposite.

All you have are just lame attacks. Address my questions if you know what you're talking about.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Thus like I said - a statement like "150 million year old fossil" is not accurate because the "fossil" is NOT the actual (once living) carbon life-form but a replica of the original life-form formed by sediments.

But if you really know your science - you should know this.

Yes, this is usually the case. In some rare instances also soft tissue survives. They sequenced T-rex proteins (not DNA) a couple of years ago. Anyway, the fact that bone has transformed into rock does not pose any problems. We still see what the original bone was like, and we can date it to the time it transformed. Why are you implying that there's a problem here?



Originally posted by edmc^2
In short there are NO clear and evident "transitional fossils" - changing from one form to another. All you've got is speculation and interpretation of the data.

You keep saying that, but it's not true. There are thousands upon thousands of "transitional" fossils. In fact, every single fossil is transitional. With a few exceptions, species are not static in longer time-scales.

You still haven't answered why there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals, but instead there's a trail of transitional fossils for many species, including humans ever since we diverged from the chimpanzee lineage.



Originally posted by edmc^2
In other words - what's old is new and what new is old depending on the recycle stage / time. So if your "fossil" - get's recycled over and and over then the data gathered - date - is subject to interpretation.

Wait, you actually think fossils can be recycled through molten rock stages? Further, you make it seem as if rocks just randomly get recycled. This is very much location dependent. A rock in the middle of a continental plate is not going to get recycled anytime soon.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Yes, this is usually the case. In some rare instances also soft tissue survives. They sequenced T-rex proteins (not DNA) a couple of years ago. Anyway, the fact that bone has transformed into rock does not pose any problems. We still see what the original bone was like, and we can date it to the time it transformed. Why are you implying that there's a problem here?


I'm not just implying that there's a problem here but I'm SAYING there's a problem with the carbon/radiometric dating.

But if you believe there's no problem then prove to me if ANY of what I stated - in the other post - below is NOT factually accurate. I'll itemized them for quick reference.

1. It is never certain that the sample selected to date an event truly corresponds with it. It is only more or less probable, in the light of the archaeological evidence at the site.

2. The half-life of radiocarbon is not as certainly known as the scientists would like.

3. The cosmic rays, never steady, may have been much stronger or weaker in the past 10,000 years than is generally believed.

4. Solar flares change the level of radiocarbon—how much in the past nobody knows.

5. The earth’s magnetic field changes fitfully on a short time scale, and so radically over thousands of years that even the north and south poles are reversed. Scientists do not know why.

6. Mixing of radiocarbon between the atmosphere and ocean can be affected by changes in climate or weather, but no one knows how much.

7. Radiocarbon scientists admit that an “Ice Age” could have affected the radiocarbon content of the air, by changing the volume and temperature of the ocean water, but they are not sure how great these changes were.

8. Mixing of radiocarbon between the surface layers and the deep ocean has an effect, very imperfectly understood.

9. The count of tree rings, used to calibrate the radiocarbon clock, is cast into doubt by the possibility of greatly different climatic conditions in past ages.

10. The radiocarbon content of old trees may be changed by diffusion of sap and resin into the heartwood.

11. Buried samples can either gain or lose radiocarbon through leaching by groundwater or by contamination.

Add to this.

12. Recycling of earth's crust affects the amount and purity of radioactive materials,

If you believe that none of these affect the c14/radiometric readings then explain how and why not.

On the other hand if any of it have an effect how much trust can you put on the data gathered?




You keep saying that, but it's not true. There are thousands upon thousands of "transitional" fossils. In fact, every single fossil is transitional. With a few exceptions, species are not static in longer time-scales.


That's a bold statement "every single fossil is transitional".

If this is the case then we won't have any problem showing the transition - say from a lung-fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, etc. But what we see is VARIATION within the same "kind" / species of birds, horse, cats, dog, etc. Any so called "transitional fossil" to bridge the gap is based on pure speculation / assumption / guesses. In other word not a clear cut evidence of transition.

The New Evolutionary Timetable agree with me.


the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.” — The New Evolutionary Timetable, p. 95


As for:




You still haven't answered why there are no 100 million year old fossils of contemporary animals, but instead there's a trail of transitional fossils for many species, including humans ever since we diverged from the chimpanzee lineage.


I've answered it twice already - but to repeat it DOES NOT EXIST!. In other words there's NO transitional fossil bridging the different species. There's a great divide, a huge GULF between Fish to Amphibian, between Amphibian and Reptile, between Reptile and Bird, between Reptile and Mammal. And most of all from any animal to Humans - there's bridge wide or long enough to close the gap - because man is unique in all his/her ways.

As for:




Wait, you actually think fossils can be recycled through molten rock stages? Further, you make it seem as if rocks just randomly get recycled. This is very much location dependent. A rock in the middle of a continental plate is not going to get recycled anytime soon.


Mountains rise, valleys fall carrying with them fossilized materials. Then the crust recycles new materials gets deposited as sediments.

To quote the process again:


These can be deposited as sediments that become sedimentary rocks. Burial, with rising pressure and temperature, can alter sedimentary (as well as any other) rocks to form metamorphic rocks....


www.indiana.edu...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The rock/soil immediately surrounding the rock wouldn't get shifted without the bone...mostly because that's how plate tectonics work


In your fantasy world, all the rock/earth, even that immediately surrounding the fossils would get moved so much, that the time period of those rocks would be DRASTICALLY different from the fossil. And during all that time, the bone would essentially stay still. Well, that, or the bone moves and the rock remains. Either way, it's completely illogical and makes NO SENSE whatsoever


So again, we can use radiometric dating other than carbon dating to accurately date fossils!

edit on 8-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
If you believe that none of these affect the c14/radiometric readings then explain how and why not.

Some of those might or might not affect C14 dating to some degree. However, that is totally irrelevant since C14 dating is not used to date things that are millions of years old and have turned into stone. You've been told this how many times now?



Originally posted by edmc^2
If this is the case then we won't have any problem showing the transition - say from a lung-fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, etc. But what we see is VARIATION within the same "kind" / species of birds, horse, cats, dog, etc. Any so called "transitional fossil" to bridge the gap is based on pure speculation / assumption / guesses. In other word not a clear cut evidence of transition.

Lies. There's e.g. a very detailed record of a land animal species becoming an aquatic one, from something lama like to a mf whale. There's that very detailed record for humans. Transitional fossils everywhere. Open your eyes.

Riddle me this. Irregardless of your worries about dating methods, why is is that we haven't discovered a single clearly ancient fossil (e.g. bone that has transformed into stone and buried under many strata) of humans, bears, lions, rhinos, or basically any large contemporary animal?
edit on 8-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The rock/soil immediately surrounding the rock wouldn't get shifted without the bone...mostly because that's how plate tectonics work


In your fantasy world, all the rock/earth, even that immediately surrounding the fossils would get moved so much, that the time period of those rocks would be DRASTICALLY different from the fossil. And during all that time, the bone would essentially stay still. Well, that, or the bone moves and the rock remains. Either way, it's completely illogical and makes NO SENSE whatsoever


So again, we can use radiometric dating other than carbon dating to accurately date fossils!

edit on 8-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


It's becoming clear to me now Mr. XYZ that you have a very narrow view things and can't seem to factor in other variables that's able to change/affect the structure or integrity of the the fossil record.

In other words you're not including the following factors.

That is:

1. It is never certain that the sample selected to date an event truly corresponds with it. It is only more or less probable, in the light of the archaeological evidence at the site.

2. The half-life of radiocarbon is not as certainly known as the scientists would like.

3. The cosmic rays, never steady, may have been much stronger or weaker in the past 10,000 years than is generally believed.

4. Solar flares change the level of radiocarbon—how much in the past nobody knows.

5. The earth’s magnetic field changes fitfully on a short time scale, and so radically over thousands of years that even the north and south poles are reversed. Scientists do not know why.

6. Mixing of radiocarbon between the atmosphere and ocean can be affected by changes in climate or weather, but no one knows how much.

7. Radiocarbon scientists admit that an “Ice Age” could have affected the radiocarbon content of the air, by changing the volume and temperature of the ocean water, but they are not sure how great these changes were.

8. Mixing of radiocarbon between the surface layers and the deep ocean has an effect, very imperfectly understood.

9. The count of tree rings, used to calibrate the radiocarbon clock, is cast into doubt by the possibility of greatly different climatic conditions in past ages.

10. The radiocarbon content of old trees may be changed by diffusion of sap and resin into the heartwood.

11. Buried samples can either gain or lose radiocarbon through leaching by groundwater or by contamination.

Add to this.

12. Recycling of earth's crust affects the amount and purity of radioactive materials,

If you believe that none of these affect the c14/radiometric readings then explain how and why not. If these are as you said NOnSENSE - please explain why.


In other word's in your fantasy land of make believe is the fossil record pure, no contamination of any sort and remained intact for thousands of years?

Remember again - the "fossils" are just hardened sediments and are dated using RADIOMETRIC DATING NOT C14 DATING!.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
C14 like I said only last around 5700 years. Since "fossils" are just mineral deposits thus when they turn into "rocks" - they will retain the long-live radioactive isotopes, like 'rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.

Thus like I said - a statement like "150 million year old fossil" is not accurate because the "fossil" is NOT the actual (once living) carbon life-form but a replica of the original life-form formed by sediments.

Is there a smiley face of someone bashing their head against the wall? I'll TRY to explain, but you probably won't get it. The definition of a fossil, is rock that replaces organic matter. How does this happen? The bones get preserved in sedimentary layers that FORM rocks. The organic matter gets trapped and the layer gets compressed by the sediments adding up over the years. The rock was formed at the same time the bone was trapped in the layer, so you can logically state that they are the same age. Bones don't move around in solid rock or somehow cause the age of the bone to be different than the age of the rock. You should do some reading on how ROCKS are formed. It should answer all your questions about dating. If you can date the rock, you can date the fossil, it's that simple. Fossil = rock and obviously the rocks we have found weren't yet recycled by tectonic plates. That's exactly why we find sea fossils in the middle of Egypt. The crust that use to be the sea floor is now in the desert.


In short there are NO clear and evident "transitional fossils" - changing from one form to another. All you've got is speculation and interpretation of the data.

Ha. Back to this again?
news.yahoo.com...
They found the half man / half ape fossil already. Sorry, the evidence just continues to add up and denying it has to be difficult at this point, with all the science and evidence you have to ignore.
edit on 8-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


As I've told you in the other thread where you also came up with that silly "radioactive decay isn't constant" hogwash:

Every material used for radiometric dating has its radioactive decay influenced by outside forces like gamma rays by a different degree. For most materials, the maximum recorded impact (aka they blasted it with crazy amounts of gamma rays for example to find out just how much that changes the decay rate) was less than 1%. A large percentage also shows no change whatsoever to outside influences, while those showing the largest changes don't even occur naturally...which means they're NOT used for radiometric dating.

You might wanna read up on radiometric dating, because you seem to have no clue...no wonder though as the links you post are all from the 70s and 80s


I'm gonna ignore your "there are no transitional fossils" remark as it's been debunked dozens of times already and it just shows your ignorance towards facts if they go against your irrational belief


Btw, your entire radiometric decay argument is total nonsense...you are falling for pseudo-science, and that's a FACT.[edi tby]edit on 8-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join