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: 58
14
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



everything that is good and smart about the construction of complex systems came about as an error ( mutation) in replication? and then the error is what is seen as as good according to natural selection,, and now that error is included in replication,,,


Correct, that's pretty much how evolution works. Mutations that result in a decreased chance of survival are less likely to be carried over to the next generation while mutations that result in an increased chance of survival are conserved.

Gotta go, will check in tomorrow.




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





if god created the universe,, would the universe be objective evidence of gods existence?

how can you objectively prove leonardo da vinci once existed? is a big reason his work left behind?


No, the mere existence of the universe wouldn't be objective evidence of god's existence. Proof of the connection between that being and the universe's evolution would be objective evidence. And no, the bible isn't objective evidence for obvious reasons...just like no religious scriptures are.

We can prove DaVinci existed because he left remains behind that prove his existence...and those remains are provably connected to that individual.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





if god created the universe,, would the universe be objective evidence of gods existence?

how can you objectively prove leonardo da vinci once existed? is a big reason his work left behind?


No, the mere existence of the universe wouldn't be objective evidence of god's existence. Proof of the connection between that being and the universe's evolution would be objective evidence. And no, the bible isn't objective evidence for obvious reasons...just like no religious scriptures are.

We can prove DaVinci existed because he left remains behind that prove his existence...and those remains are provably connected to that individual.


this is off topic, but my main problem with mankind and the world...

what does science have to say about the progression of technology used to destroy massive amounts of humans and their infrastructure? if no religion existed and science was the main belief and passion of the human race... would science be able to implement absolute morals,, or use ration and reason to deduct a system of peace? a reason for more and more of the peoples money being spent on killing machines,, to no longer need to be spent in such a fashion,,, Why dont scientists not allow those things to be produced? why do "folks" desiree to be in control of these such things? is reality seen as a game,,, if nooone is watching, if there are no repercussions,, we can get away with being the devil,, is this how those in power who make those moves think?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
No evolution and abiogenesis aren't connected...mostly because the theory makes no claims regarding how life started. Also, it's completely irrelevant how life started...it could have been abiogenesis, a god, gods, something we haven't thought of, pink unicorns...it still wouldn't change the FACT that today's biodiversity happened because of evolution.
Oh really? How is it not connected? Tell me. Wouldn't it make a difference to evolution if there was just a single self-replicating molecule that evolved into everything else, or if there instead was a bunch of different types of first cells? What if type A of early cells in one region became mammals, and type B became reptiles and so on? That all has no influence on evolution at all right? It's obvious you haven't thought it through, but are just repeating everything you've heard. And I'm sure you'll reply that we already have established reptile and mammal trees blah blah, which is not true, but whatever.

reply to post by radix
 

I already know that the crowd I'm dealing with, and it's not the one that is known to be open-minded. I'll post a few things here to challenge your irrational faith in that particular authority you call 'science', whether relevant to abiogenesis or not, and then I'm out, because the chances of you waking up to your own subservient attitude are slim to none. I'm pretty sure you already cringed when I used faith and science in the same sentence, and that is the perfect sign of your sheeping. In any case. Have fun.

Misconduct on the Rise

The time is right to confront misconduct

What is Truth? Standards of Scientific Integrity in American Heart Association Journals

Beware the creeping cracks of bias

How I was expelled from the University of New South Wales
(An example of the suppression of science)


Radical theory explains the origin, evolution, and nature of life, challenges conventional wisdom

Politically Incorrect Prof May Lose His Job

When science becomes dogma

The Limits of Science

When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience

This one's for you Mr"scientifically proven"XYZ.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism



Listen well to what he says after 0:40, and after 1:50 (you might need to turn your volume up)





For the record, you did a great job in the opening post edmc^2.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


What creature on earth, created the first form of consciousness?

and do you think that conscious creatures then use themselves over hundreads of thousands of years to gather energy, and use that energy to have self replicating and functioning parts which make up the whole human, and these parts take care of systematically build new material structure out of elements and molecules,, and occasionally one of the parts part which reads code sends a wrong signal to a section of parts, and now the part makes a slightly different type of system of consciousness, along with a different speed to use it, how much room it can take up, how it incorporates the external reality,etc.. ?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Wouldn't it make a difference to evolution if there was just a single self-replicating molecule that evolved into everything else, or if there instead was a bunch of different types of first cells?

It's very likely that there were a bunch of different types of first cells that used different types of replicators but natural selection obviously favoured the system we see today.

What if type A of early cells in one region became mammals, and type B became reptiles and so on?

Then the DNA evidence would show distinctly different evolutionary lines that don't interconnect and this is clearly not what we see.


I'm sure you'll reply that we already have established reptile and mammal trees blah blah, which is not true, but whatever.

Well what do you know, another unsubstantiated claim. If you have evidence to support several distinct lines of evolution that don't interconnect, please present it.


I'll post a few things here to challenge your irrational faith in that particular authority you call 'science', whether relevant to abiogenesis or not, and then I'm out, because the chances of you waking up to your own subservient attitude are slim to none. I'm pretty sure you already cringed when I used faith and science in the same sentence, and that is the perfect sign of your sheeping. In any case. Have fun.

Faith is belief without evidence which is the opposite of science so you're not making much sense here. Now to your links. It's not clear to me how they're relevant to abiogenesis. Science is competitive and scientists are human, there are obviously those who try to cut corners. The best defense against bad science is, as always, better science and it's always going to be scientists that expose scientific fraud.

As for the allegations of suppression of dissending views, I don't think any of your links provide a very good case. All of these people have obviously had the opportunity to present their ideas and they have been challenged, as they should be.

Extraordinary claims demand exraordinary evidence and the claims made have truly been extraordinary. Stephen J Crothers maintains that black holes can't exist according to the theory of relativity, Erik Andrulis has presented a "theory of everything" that suggests that all physical phenomena (atoms, molecules, cells etc.) can be described by spinning spirals he calls gyres, Bill Tiller claims that humans can physically change matter by just using their minds and James Enstrom has published a study that came to the conclusion that secondhand smoke does not increase the risk of lung cancer and heart disease (the study was funded by the tobacco industry BTW, maybe you presented it as an example of bias?).

These claims have been discredited, not by denying the right to present them or dismissing them off-hand but by pointing out that they lack sufficient evidence or are built on misinterpretations. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please present it.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Morals have nothing to do with religion, they're imposed by society. Also, science saved waaaaaaaaay morep people than it killed...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


What creature on earth, created the first form of consciousness?

and do you think that conscious creatures then use themselves over hundreads of thousands of years to gather energy, and use that energy to have self replicating and functioning parts which make up the whole human, and these parts take care of systematically build new material structure out of elements and molecules,, and occasionally one of the parts part which reads code sends a wrong signal to a section of parts, and now the part makes a slightly different type of system of consciousness, along with a different speed to use it, how much room it can take up, how it incorporates the external reality,etc.. ?



Evolution isn't a conscious process...there's ZERO evidence that any intelligence is involved.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


What creature on earth, created the first form of consciousness?

and do you think that conscious creatures then use themselves over hundreads of thousands of years to gather energy, and use that energy to have self replicating and functioning parts which make up the whole human, and these parts take care of systematically build new material structure out of elements and molecules,, and occasionally one of the parts part which reads code sends a wrong signal to a section of parts, and now the part makes a slightly different type of system of consciousness, along with a different speed to use it, how much room it can take up, how it incorporates the external reality,etc.. ?



Evolution isn't a conscious process...there's ZERO evidence that any intelligence is involved.


so the first concept, containment and working of consciousness in a mind,, was created by accident? and then accidentally improved upon up until today?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


We don't know...we don't even know which animals are conscious. Dolphins and primates are, we know that...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



so the first concept, containment and working of consciousness in a mind,, was created by accident? and then accidentally improved upon up until today?


Unless you're suggesing that the first replicator was conscious, it would seem that consciousness is an evolved characteristic so no, it wouldn't be by accident but by natural selection.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
By the way, just to make this clear...humans aren't the only conscious being on the planet





posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
so the first concept, containment and working of consciousness in a mind,, was created by accident? and then accidentally improved upon up until today?


I don't know if maybe you are referring to self awareness, but pretty much all life with a brain and nervous system are conscious. Self awareness is something you can't really test without being inside the creature's brain, although the mirror test has shown that many animals are definitely self aware. It's a tough thing to prove, however. My cat doesn't acknowledge her reflection in a mirror, but I suspect that's because she knows it's her and doesn't care, some other cats react differently and attack reflections. I think it's just their level of intelligence, realizing that the reflection is them, not the actual awareness / consciousness, however.

One of the common misconceptions is when people claim evolution happened by accident. This is far from true. Evolution follows nature, it doesn't consciously create anything. Creatures adapt to environmental changes, or they die out. The brain evolved slowly after a long period, and the reason humans are more advanced than the rest is because of the evolution of the jaw bone that allowed an increase in cranial capacity, which gives us our creativity, problem solving and ability to plan and design.

Do you have a pet? Can you honestly interact with them and say they aren't conscious or aware? Yes, obviously they are more instinctual than us because we can think deeply about things, while they are focused on the simple things like eating, defending territory, etc, but they still communicate, recognize their owners mannerisms, and become lovable companions in many cases. They have emotions, experience pain, and a lot of the time listen to the owner's commands. To me, it boils down to the simple fact that humans are much more intelligent than the rest of the planet. We can contemplate these questions.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





My cat doesn't acknowledge her reflection in a mirror, but I suspect that's because she knows it's her and doesn't care...


Most cats simply don't give a # about a lot of things


With cats I'm not even sure they're pets...or if it's the other way around and we are their pets.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


We don't know...we don't even know which animals are conscious. Dolphins and primates are, we know that...



all animals are conscious,, it takes consciousness to utilize senses to move ones physical body,,, a cat, a bird, a snail, a snake,,, all conscious creatures,,



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


We don't know...we don't even know which animals are conscious. Dolphins and primates are, we know that...



all animals are conscious,, it takes consciousness to utilize senses to move ones physical body,,, a cat, a bird, a snail, a snake,,, all conscious creatures,,


Should have phrased it differently...I meant "self-aware".



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Barcs
 





My cat doesn't acknowledge her reflection in a mirror, but I suspect that's because she knows it's her and doesn't care...


Most cats simply don't give a # about a lot of things


With cats I'm not even sure they're pets...or if it's the other way around and we are their pets.


That's true. Cats aren't like dogs, where they will follow every command religiously. They pretty much live independent and do what makes them happy. I don't really consider my cat a pet. I consider her a friend/companion and she shows me a lot of affection because I pretty much give her full freedom. There's no question in my mind that she is self aware.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
the point i was attempting to make was that,,, we dont fully understand the complexities and precision involved in brain/consciousness,.,.

I am saying,, some point on earth,, the brain consciousness biological system would have had to been innovated from scratch,, and you can say it then evolved over much time,, or the technology of consciousness was slowly improved upon,, this is accepted by you without problem because you are used to evolution,, I am flabbergasted at how dumb replicating molecules can construct the brain with all its uses and potential,, you say its not intelligent,,, then I say to me,, it is twice as intelligent,, for being able to create such complex systems without trying to,,

ill say this again,,, it doesnt make a difference to me how long it took the molecules to innovate the biological technology,,, because we call humans intelligent creatures,,, and it took us hundreads of thousands of years to make a simple wheel,,,,

meanwhile dumb molecules have already invented biological solar panels,, lens and optics ( eyes) ,,, sensory feedback systems,, complex structured and layered, self correcting and self assembling biological vehicles, controlled from a complex command center of consciousness,,,.

you guys are blinded by simplistic thinking,, you can read all the science books,, hold all that information as your world view,,, and you would understand maybe .01 % of truth,,, or how reality ought to be perceived..

im not saying i know anything,,, but you guys think you know you do...
edit on 23-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


We don't know...we don't even know which animals are conscious. Dolphins and primates are, we know that...



all animals are conscious,, it takes consciousness to utilize senses to move ones physical body,,, a cat, a bird, a snail, a snake,,, all conscious creatures,,


Should have phrased it differently...I meant "self-aware".


most creatures are most likely self aware as well,.,.,.., any creature that reproduces and has senses,,, im sure senses and has a perception of its mate,,, i therefore have confidence it can deduce that it must look somewhat similar.,,.,.,. i have 2 cats,,, they are brothers.,,.,. im sure they each no they are a cat and somewhat what they look like from viewing each other,, and knowing how they move themselves and what they are capable of,, they live withthem selves second to second from birth,, im sure they are aware of themselves...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by MrXYZ
No evolution and abiogenesis aren't connected...mostly because the theory makes no claims regarding how life started. Also, it's completely irrelevant how life started...it could have been abiogenesis, a god, gods, something we haven't thought of, pink unicorns...it still wouldn't change the FACT that today's biodiversity happened because of evolution.
Oh really? How is it not connected? Tell me. Wouldn't it make a difference to evolution if there was just a single self-replicating molecule that evolved into everything else, or if there instead was a bunch of different types of first cells? What if type A of early cells in one region became mammals, and type B became reptiles and so on? That all has no influence on evolution at all right? It's obvious you haven't thought it through, but are just repeating everything you've heard. And I'm sure you'll reply that we already have established reptile and mammal trees blah blah, which is not true, but whatever.

reply to post by radix
 

I already know that the crowd I'm dealing with, and it's not the one that is known to be open-minded. I'll post a few things here to challenge your irrational faith in that particular authority you call 'science', whether relevant to abiogenesis or not, and then I'm out, because the chances of you waking up to your own subservient attitude are slim to none. I'm pretty sure you already cringed when I used faith and science in the same sentence, and that is the perfect sign of your sheeping. In any case. Have fun.

Misconduct on the Rise

The time is right to confront misconduct

What is Truth? Standards of Scientific Integrity in American Heart Association Journals

Beware the creeping cracks of bias

How I was expelled from the University of New South Wales
(An example of the suppression of science)


Radical theory explains the origin, evolution, and nature of life, challenges conventional wisdom

Politically Incorrect Prof May Lose His Job

When science becomes dogma

The Limits of Science

When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience

This one's for you Mr"scientifically proven"XYZ.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism



Listen well to what he says after 0:40, and after 1:50 (you might need to turn your volume up)





For the record, you did a great job in the opening post edmc^2.


Thanks!

That's a lot info there vasaga - thanks for sharing it.

But you know also what boggles the mind? The way the cell works and how it functions. It's quite mind boggling to assume that this is a product of abiogenesis-evolution. A product of mindless blind chance event. An unguided blind process with no intelligence involved. Yet when pressed further to explain how it all came to be, their brain shuts down and go in auto mode with the predictable answer - "we don't know".

They only know one thing to say - "We Don't Know" because they CAN'T admit to themselves that the evidence is right there - staring them in the face: INTELLIGENCE!

INTELLIGENCE in full view - from the MACRO (the Universe) to the micro (the atom).

They all show a degree of INTELLIGENCE - useful, purposeful, meaningful INFORMATION - a telltale sign of Intelligence in Design / Intelligent Designer.

Yet they still say - 'there's no evidence of this intelligence but just random accidental chemical reactions of a blind chemical unguided process.'

How dumb is that?







Amazing indeed!!

Intelligence Indeed!
edit on 23-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: add vid



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join