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.
Common ancestry between organisms of different species arises during speciation, in which new species are established from a single ancestral population. Organisms which share a more recent common ancestor are more closely relateden.m.wikipedia.org...
kyviecaldges
reply to post by nixie_nox
To deny evolution because it can't be mathematically formulated is just silliness and nonsense. Then you would have to deny that weather exists. We would be able to develop a formula to predict who the next 5 presidents are. We would be able to predict the future.
So stop saying that evolution doesn't exist because scientists can't predict the future.
I never said that scientists can or cannot accurately predict the future.
You are creating an argument where one doesn't exist.
What I have said is that scientists cannot accurately model the past using punctuated equilibrium as a mathematical model.
When the mathematical construct that is being used relies upon an infinite number of input variables, then no computer existing today can reconstruct the past effectively. No computer can process an infinite number of variables simultaneously when all probabilities are equal.
I had already discussed this when linking this paper.
peter vlar
kyviecaldges
reply to post by nixie_nox
To deny evolution because it can't be mathematically formulated is just silliness and nonsense. Then you would have to deny that weather exists. We would be able to develop a formula to predict who the next 5 presidents are. We would be able to predict the future.
So stop saying that evolution doesn't exist because scientists can't predict the future.
I never said that scientists can or cannot accurately predict the future.
You are creating an argument where one doesn't exist.
What I have said is that scientists cannot accurately model the past using punctuated equilibrium as a mathematical model.
When the mathematical construct that is being used relies upon an infinite number of input variables, then no computer existing today can reconstruct the past effectively. No computer can process an infinite number of variables simultaneously when all probabilities are equal.
I had already discussed this when linking this paper.
That's the most clear and concise presentation of your point of view I've seen the entire thread. While I still disagree with you on a lot of points I now have a better grasp of where you're coming from so for that I thank you.
POPPYCOCK... Every single argument that you use to support abiogenesis from a single cell actually supports the idea of intelligent design. You are your own worst enemy.
Just give up on the argument that not knowing how life started somehow falsifies evolution.
According to creationists, we do need to throw it out because we lack a theory that explains the ultimate origin of matter.
This is one of many problems with creationist arguments. It requires us to throw out the knowledge we do have because we do not have all possible knowledge.
Not knowing the ultimate origin of matter means that we need to throw out ALL scientific theories, according to creationist logic. This would include atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, gravity, etc.
As to abiogenesis and evolution specifically, the theory of evolution would not change one red cent if we found that a God magically poofed an RNA replicator into being, which then evolved into the biodiversity we see today.
kyviecaldges
I am saying that evidence does not exist to validate abiogenesis.
I don't believe in abiogenesis and evolution form a single cell to multicellular predator top of the food chain.
What apparently many don't know, scientist ARE able to prove abiogenesis as being valid, proven theory for origin of life. We can blame it on bad education, or people ignoring latest research, but really, if you like to discuss this, it would help if you really do some research.
Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are PLAUSIBLE prebiotic feedstock molecules and the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models.
1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.
2: superficially pleasing or persuasive.
3: appearing worthy of belief.
Your argument is from incredulity.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you're going to hold your beliefs up for examination, you have to expect to have such things pointed out.
In my view, if your argument requires logical fallacies, then it's a bad argument and you ought not make it.
For example, William Paley claimed that because he could not imagine how the eye evolved, then it could not have evolved.
The OP is arguing against a scientific fact
SuperFrog
Are you serious?
kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyingfish
Your argument is from incredulity.
You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you're going to hold your beliefs up for examination, you have to expect to have such things pointed out.
In my view, if your argument requires logical fallacies, then it's a bad argument and you ought not make it.
Please tell me how I am making my argument from incredulity.
I just described to you, at length, how a study linked only applied to a partial synthesis of only three of the five components of nucleotides and only two of the four components of RNA, and all in a conjectured and controlled environment.
Did you read my response?
Do you actually think that I am arguing from ignorance or do you plan on cherry picking sentences to fit an argument that you create out of thin air?
Your desperation is so obvious that it is laughable.
For example, William Paley claimed that because he could not imagine how the eye evolved, then it could not have evolved.
I am not merely telling you that I couldn't imagine how abiogenesis occurred. I am actually describing to you the flawed reasoning and impartial evidence that YOU are using to validate it.
Big time freaking difference.edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.
tadaman
reply to post by helldiver
The OP is arguing against a scientific fact
No, a theory.....and now we have come full circle....and you still dont get what he is talking about.
Other unproven things can then also be called facts by that logic....even that God made it all and does it all....
You see? or do you still not get it.
You are getting all uppity over someone arguing an alternate idea to a THEORY....not a fact. You act like its a fact and think it is an appropriate response. Like for example if he was arguing that the earth was in fact flat.....and that you are somehow defending "common sense" by standing by the "it is round" argument.
Evolution is a theory....an unproven theory. NOT fact.
Until it is PROVEN, everyone who cares to has the right to be reserved with their validation and acceptance of this theory as being worthy to them.
And that is really the point. You have tried to devalue his and everyone else´s right to have the resounding evidence brought to them before giving any meaningful measure of credence to this IDEA.
Faith can not be demanded of anyone....and you could say mass and that would still be the case.
Try and earn it if its so important to you. My faith and that of the OP´s needs more. Our acceptance of anything as fact needs to be proven as such. We wont just trust you...no. Sorry.
And that is why you are wrong to act like a Bigot about it. (and thats twice)
edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)
tadaman
reply to post by helldiver
The OP is arguing against a scientific fact
No, a theory.....and now we have come full circle....and you still dont get what he is talking about.
Other unproven things can then also be called facts by that logic....even that God made it all and does it all....
You see? or do you still not get it.
You are getting all uppity over someone arguing an alternate idea to a THEORY....not a fact. You act like its a fact and think it is an appropriate response. Like for example if he was arguing that the earth was in fact flat.....and that you are somehow defending "common sense" by standing by the "it is round" argument.
Evolution is a theory....an unproven theory. NOT fact.
Until it is PROVEN, everyone who cares to has the right to be reserved with their validation and acceptance of this theory as being worthy to them.
And that is really the point. You have tried to devalue his and everyone else´s right to have the resounding evidence brought to them before giving any meaningful measure of credence to this IDEA.
Faith can not be demanded of anyone....and you could say mass and that would still be the case.
Try and earn it if its so important to you. My faith and that of the OP´s needs more. Our acceptance of anything as fact needs to be proven as such. We wont just trust you...no. Sorry.
And that is why you are wrong to act like a Bigot about it. (and thats twice)
edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)
You said recursive algirithms invalidate evolution, so it must be a fallacy. I pointed out that the problem is with recursive algorithms themselves, not evolution. You then post a link where recursive algorithms have been used to create a phylogenetic tree.
The scientific clues leading to this conclusion derived from computer simulations of the slow cooling process of continents, combined with analysis of the distribution of diamonds in the deep Earth.
Simulation of the formation of the Earth from smaller objects still possessing significant gravitational attraction requires specialized computer codes that are capable of correctly solving Hamilton's equations of motion taking into consideration the diverse time-scales involved, and the subtle gravitational resonances that develop between Jupiter and the growing planetary embryos. The codes, called ‘symplectic integrators’, are now in widespread use
A team of scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) analyzed in computer simulations how much CO2 in the atmosphere was necessary to prevent the early Earth from falling into a “snowball state”. They found the critical amount to be significantly higher than previously assumed, according to their study now published in Geophysical Research Letters. This sheds light on the environment on early Earth during a time when life first appeared on our planet.
You're still molding abiogenesis and evolution together.
And abiogenesis is not the spontaneous formation of a single celled organism.
You've conveniently skipped a few biochemical steps there.
Except it HAS been proven.