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.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Well, to paraphrase, viruses are just a piece of nucleic acid surrounded by bad news. They don't have the organelles or other structures that are characteristic of "life", yet they still can pass on their genetic material.
Bacteria, archaea, and eukarya are just nucleic acids surrounded by a few layers of lipid membranes. I don't think organelles are characteristic of life as over 99.9% of all living lack them.
In the end, organelles are just streamlined bacteria.
I've been saying, there is no universally accepted definition of life. However, those crystals you mentioned are definitely not it (at least not biological life) since they're not subject to natural selection and by extension cannot evolve.
so which one is it again?
have foundation or no foundation or does not require one?
where should I pin the tail on the donkey?
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Er, all eukaryotes have them and so do some prokaryotes. Not sure where you get the 99.9% number, though.
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Wait, are you saying that organelles are themselves alive?
Originally posted by HappyBunny
That is true. However, life usually replicates itself through cell division. Viruses self-assemble once inside the host cell.
This is one big strawman argument. No one said God doesn't exist or that it's impossible for him to exist, only that he isn't the Creator.
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Originally posted by Barcs
EMC this thread is turning exactly the same as all your others. You don't understand basic science and are playing word games debating semantics and nothing more. Stop dishonestly associating abiogenesis with evolution. They have nothing to do with one another.
Originally posted by edmc^2
I've posted this question already maybe you know the answer.
It's a known fact that Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy.
Now which one existed first, matter or energy?
Matter IS energy.
E=mc^2.
hahahaha! When I typed that I didn't even realize that this guy's name is the formula for that! So basically he doesn't even understand what his own screen name means.
Define: irony.
I needed a laugh today!
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
Love how you throw all logic overboard to protect your fantasyland pre-conceived notion of a creator
so which one is it again?
have foundation or no foundation or does not require one?
where should I pin the tail on the donkey?
To make this perfectly clear:
ABIOGENESIS ISN'T A PREREQUISITE (aka foundation) of EVOLUTION!! ONE DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER!!
I know you're trying really hard to claim without knowing how life started we can't say evolution is correct...of course all in an effort to leave the door open to your silly genesis story. But that's not how science works! All the theory of evolution requires is objective evidence of the processes it describes (changes in allele frequency in DNA) and the fact that life exits. How that life started is irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant when determining that your grand grand grand father's bones are related to you (an example you funny enough keep on ignoring).
So evolution has a "foundation", but it's not reliant on abiogenesis. Claiming otherwise is DUMB, UNEDUCATED, and just plain IGNORANT. Are you subscribing to those traits? Really?edit on 4-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
So how did evolution theory got its start then if it doesn't "DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER - abioGenesis"?
Originally posted by edmc^2
L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E - from J e ho v a h God the Grand Creator!
Originally posted by edmc^2
Glad that you've figured that one out - n I thought you were the smart one.
So as Barcs said - Matter is Energy or like I said:
"Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy."
But since you have the answer to this - interesting question.
Which one existed first? Was it matter or energy?
What transformed into what first?
I think Barcs believed Matter was first to exist (or was he saying both?), but what say you?
edit:
Oh BTW - just to be precise "Matter is simply one form of Energy" - American Scientific.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
So how did evolution theory got its start then if it doesn't "DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER - abioGenesis"?
Like I said, in the same way every other scientific theory does...OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, we got tons of it that fully back up the theory.
- Fossil record
- DNA analysis
- Migratory trends
- Applied evolution
- Modern medicine
- Real time observation
The "start" (as you call it) consists of all that objective evidence, and NOT some underlying theory. The same goes for gravity (which allows us to build planes without knowing how gravity first formed) and electric energy (allowing you to type your posts without knowing how it first came to be).
The "donkey" is standing still, you simply can't seem to hit it
All I'm asking is before evolution (theory) started what was there before it? In other words how did the "allele" arose, appeared before it changed/evolved into another form?
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by edmc^2
Glad that you've figured that one out - n I thought you were the smart one.
So as Barcs said - Matter is Energy or like I said:
"Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy."
But since you have the answer to this - interesting question.
Which one existed first? Was it matter or energy?
What transformed into what first?
I think Barcs believed Matter was first to exist (or was he saying both?), but what say you?
edit:
Oh BTW - just to be precise "Matter is simply one form of Energy" - American Scientific.
All matter is energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Asking which came first is like asking whether a house cat came before a feline, when all cats are felines. Obviously it was all raw energy at some point, then it spread out and began to cool down and various energies reacted with each other.edit on 4-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Obviously it was all raw energy at some point
“the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse -- Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 21
“Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.” -- The Universe, by Josip Kleczek, 1976, Vol. 11, p. 17
Originally posted by edmc^2
Now what was the source of this "RAW ENERGY"?
Where did this "RAW ENERGY" came from?
Did it always existed?
What say you?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
All I'm asking is before evolution (theory) started what was there before it? In other words how did the "allele" arose, appeared before it changed/evolved into another form?
We don't know for sure how first life started. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis that's currently being tested with some remarkable results. Others say god, Allah, or some giant spaghetti monster did it...all without providing any objective evidence. But in the end, we simply don't know yet. All we know is how biodiversity came to be due to evolution.
So bottom line is - you don't know - which pretty much sums up what the evolution community know about this matter.
In other words - it's an easy way OUT not to know the truth. A cop-out answer to the most fundamental question about the origin of Life - "WE DON'T KNOW".
SO Evolution Theory is fundamentally based on what "WE DON'T KNOW".
This makes it even sillier than abioGenesis hypothesis then.
Originally posted by Daemonicon
To reinforce what XYz is stating:
EVOLUTION describes what happens ONCE LIFE EXISTS. It is NOT a theory as to WHY there is life, but only WHY there is the DIVERSITY we witness.
Simple as that.
Which this thread is about - if the abioGenesis hypothesis is such a weak, unreliable hypothesis to explain the origin of life - then how can you honestly say that life definitely evolved.