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.
- it's just their opinion (we haven't had that one yet cause the red herring party is still going strong, but we have had the claim that their other opinions that are tickling the ears of some people here rather than something they don't want to hear, acknowledge or even think about, is "science"; their other opinions, in case that sentence was too long)
...no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction. - Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz
Are you willing to acknowledge that life is (or living organisms are) made up of interdependent cofunctional machinery and systems of machinery (technology) responsible for the preservation and reproduction of life?
Are you willing to acknowledge that that is a fact or factual/true/correct, without error/accurate description of a reality? Or perhaps part of it?
"There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life."
In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*
* No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.
9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”
In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*
* No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.
9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”
originally posted by: Barcs
So, there is no model for the origin of life, yet it's separate from evolution.
yet it's separate from evolution.
No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.
originally posted by: whereislogic
...I disagreed with that cop-out that I 'predicted' to be presented or thought of by those who agree with your views regarding evolutionary philosophies. If it's called "the chemical evolution theory of life" or just "chemical evolution" that point that I quoted above is just ridiculous.
And if promoters of evolutionary philosophies are using the word "evolution" to refer to or in stories about the subjects he spoke about at the end of the video when defining the word "evolution", then any objection of him doing that as well when responding to these evolutionary philosophies is irrational and unreasonable. In some cases even deliberately deceptive and an attempt to start a useless debate about something that should be obvious to anyone willing to be honest and reasonable about it.
1, 2. What mechanism is said to be a basis for evolution?
THERE is another difficulty facing the theory of evolution. Just how is it supposed to have happened? What is a basic mechanism that is presumed to have enabled one type of living thing to evolve into another type? Evolutionists say that various changes inside the nucleus of the cell play their part. And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. It is believed that the particular parts involved in these mutational changes are the genes and chromosomes in sex cells, since mutations in them can be passed along to one’s descendants.
2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”3
3. What type of mutations would be required for evolution?
3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”4 And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations—sudden changes in heredity—breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”5
Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila, in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.
Richard B. Goldschmidt
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman
...
This guy just goes off on every unnecessary tangent because he knows if he keeps it simple it will be easy to demolish his argument.
originally posted by: whereislogic
The misleading and/or vague usages and interpretations of the concept of "evolution" (in a biological context) continue strong on this forum...
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
Remember, just because there are people that are diligently trying to exclude the subject of the origin of life from the subject of evolution, that isn't going to change the fact/truth that: “In its full-throated, biological sense, . . . evolution means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” Darwinian evolution postulates that “virtually all of life, or at least all of its most interesting features, resulted from natural selection working on random variation.”—Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
The "by natural means" is also referring to the 'by chance' causal factor. The forces of nature operating by chance on molecules are the 2 main causal factors the evolutionist and philosophical naturalist has to work with, they tend to refer to it as 'by chance and necessity' (which is misleading cause the forces of nature by necessity move in the direction described by the words "entropy" or "decay", from order to disorder*, whereas the evolutionary storyline is proposed as moving in the opposite direction, from individual molecules to complete biomolecular machinery and systems of machinery, all by chance, by accident, spontaneously).
*: James Tour has another way of describing the problem for the evolutionary storyline that Behe is addressing above “whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” He discusses it at 10:25 in the video I used on page 6.
originally posted by: whereislogic
...the forces of nature on their own operating by chance do not have the effect of creating or developing machinery and technology from individual molecules and their chemical reactions governed solely by the earlier mentioned causal factors; or as James Tour puts it at 10:25-14:10 in the video shared earlier: "Molecules don't care about life. Organisms care about life. Chemistry, on the contrary is utterly indifferent to life. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." An insurmountable problem or hurdle for the evolutionary storyline ...