No time for Evolution?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I, for one, was finally won over by the ALL CAPS and bolded text.

a reply to: neoholographic

The Origin of Evolution is Celled Organisms that could sense light, and swim away. Cells that could not detect light, swam too far to the surface of the water and were destroyed.

There you go. Pretty much the beginning.

However, the true answer to the Origin of Evolution is explained by DNA's Transcription Process. Essentially, forgiving Evolution, if you are to trace all Reproduction back to the basis of it's origin- you will see Transcription Errors that basically are not 'complete' replicates of their parents. This is more a compliment to Evolution, than the whole 'environmental factors' thing. Take any animal that has white fur in snow- it's somehow often presented that the Snowy environment somehow leans of the chances of getting white fur, but this isn't true. Without much reproduction to create many genetic mistakes, will the fur ever change color, and white only becomes more prevalent because it's advantage, and it's own breeding. Nothing about the environment effects these animals as much as they first effect themselves, and then interactive with the environment more successfully.

While they say 'stress' causes evolution and also white hair, I still see this as dictating evidence in the wrong order. If a family of wolves has specific genes that is not susceptible to turning white easy through transcription error(possibly even because they're so healthy), they die even if they are top-ist and fit-ist come Winter.

a reply to: neoholographic

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MODERN EVOLUTION SYNTHESIS IS!

It's about what happens (changes) to life after it's started. 18 pages in and you didn't know that?!

a reply to: GetHyped

I thought I'd try his tactic to see if he would understand it any better.

I've not got much hope though.

a reply to: imjack

You confused your answer because there's no response. Show me the published paper that says any of these things are the Origin of Evolution. Show me a published Paper that talks about the Origin of Evolution in this way.

You can't know Origins because EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE!

Without Life you can't know the Origin of Evolution. You said:

The Origin of Evolution is Celled Organisms

Did Evolution just pop into existence at this point LOL?

You then said:

However, the true answer to the Origin of Evolution is explained by DNA's Transcription Process.

Did evolution pop into existence at this point???

Which was it LOL?

You don't know because there's no answer without the Origin of Life but of course Darwinist on ATS will make it up as they go! Please

a reply to: neoholographic

Before people start bowing to your every whim. Why don't YOU show a paper saying that origins must be known before we can understand evolution?

I've requested it a few times, yet you've shown nothing. All you have done is given your opinion. Science doesn't care about opinion.

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you have a learning disability?

No offense intended. It's an honest question.

You fail to understand the basics.

Evolution needs life because it's about changes in living organisms.

LIVING.

Evolution started happening, when there was life for it to happen to.

That's why the theory of biological evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life. Only after it started.

How can you say evolution only deals with what happens after life when according to you evolution must have life?

Because that's what the theory of evolution is. Whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant.

Evolution must have life because it's about the diversity of life.

Without living organisms to evolve.. there is no biological evolution.

What is so damned difficult for you to grasp about that?

a reply to: neoholographic

Can you explain how not knowing the origins of life renders our understanding of genetics change sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity invalid/incomplete?

And no, not a long-winded rant peppered with ALL CAPS and bolded text, just a simple, to the point answer, please.

a reply to: GetHyped

Asked and Answered. You made a silly mistake in your last post and now you're asking a question that was answered 5 pages ago.

TRY AGAIN

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: GetHyped

Asked and Answered.

No, at no point have you directly answered ANY questions from either myself or others in this thread.

Notice the pattern here?

a reply to: neoholographic

Actually, you've been dodging answering the question. All you keep doing is inserting your opinion as if it's somehow superior to science.

a reply to: neoholographic

In fact, let's take the absurdity of your argument to its (il)logical conclusion:

Can you explain how the difference between life arising from non-life vs. the first primitive life being created by a god changes our understanding of genetics change sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Your response makes no sense. You said:

Evolution started happening, when there was life for it to happen to.

Where's the evidence for this nonsense? Where was evolution before life began? Did it have some magic, ghostly existence? Did it just pop into existence and at what point did it pop into existence? I already have 2 different answers from Get Hyped so he's confused, so maybe you can take a wild guess LOL.

Evolution must have life, therefore the origin of evolution is inextricably linked to the origin of life UNLESS evolution is magical and it was invisible until at some unknown point it popped into existence!

You guys are funny!

a reply to: neoholographic

The one who makes no sense, is you.

Come on. Show us some paper that backs up your opinion. Show us why origins of life need to be understood before we can understand evolution. Not give us your opinion. Show us with a peer reviewed paper.

a reply to: neoholographic

Yeah...

Definitely a learning disability.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Probably been indoctrinated too hard.

I heard that can make you think bizzare thoughts and pass off opinions as evidence/proof.

a reply to: neoholographic

Um....simple reading mistake here.

The first point was; the first example of (Practical)Evolution, while the second is more or less the origin of the biological mechanics involved, not so much related to being more 'fit or superior'. The second point is still prominent in the first...They're not two separate answers to the same question. One is an answer, the other explains why.

Did evolution pop into existence at this point???

Well, the first Transcription Error was most likely not-positive. It literally could just translate to shorter lifespan, and is more likely to be something bad. But yes, Transcription errors are where Evolution 'pops' into play, being that if a positive Transcription error occurs, that in a nut-shell is evolution, because that positive trait will now be passed down the family line through 'who is more fit'.

a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, evolution is a ghostly entity.

Not a word used to describe a biological process.

Before it was required on Earth, it was vacationing on Risa.

Which is in the Alpha Quadrant, in case you were wondering.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I always thought it was hanging out with the Borg in the Delta Quadrant.

Shows how much I know

a reply to: TerryDon79

Understandable mistake. That's where Abiogenesis was, I believe.