What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Awesome thanks!

a reply to: borntowatch
Look, this link, nothing dangerous, just wiki: Rhinoceros = Unicorn,
just check under evolution and how it spread and you may use your own brain to see what it really thinks

Rhinocerotoids diverged from other perissodactyls by the early Eocene. Fossils of Hyrachyus eximus found in North America date to this period. This small hornless ancestor resembled a tapir or small horse more than a rhino. Three families, sometimes grouped together as the superfamily Rhinocerotoidea, evolved in the late Eocene, namely the Hyracodontidae, Amynodontidae and Rhinocerotidae.

And if you feel you're ready for it go here

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Science is being corrected yet again....

Oh, the travesty! Shame on them for following the evidence!

According to the latest news available on Mr Dawkins's website, the theory of evolution is now being expanded to include non-living material as well not just biodiversity.

Citation please? I don't see that news anywhere on Dawkins' site. You are referring to an unproven hypothesis. Evolution is a biological process, and it hasn't yet been expanded to included non living things.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: Cypress

Science is being corrected yet again....

According to the latest news available on Mr Dawkins's website, the theory of evolution is now being expanded to include non-living material as well not just biodiversity.

MIT research takes Darwin’s idea of evolution, and runs with it; the theory being presented is that life itself evolves from non-living matter naturally.

First of all, science is always self-correcting. That's what great about the scientific process; science knows it doesn't know everything, and the scientific process is always working on refining scientific knowledge. Science is continually trying to poke holes in its own theories, which results in strengthening them through fine-tuning.

Secondly, and having said that, I would like to see the research from MIT that you are talking about. I don't understand how the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection be the drivers of abiogenesis (living material from non-living material; i.e., the origin of life).

If MIT's findings based on their research claims that mutation and natural selection were what cause abiogenesis, then I would really need to understand what they mean by that before accepting their findings as potentially valid.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Awesome thanks!

a reply to: borntowatch
Look, this link, nothing dangerous, just wiki: Rhinoceros = Unicorn,
just check under evolution and how it spread and you may use your own brain to see what it really thinks

Rhinocerotoids diverged from other perissodactyls by the early Eocene. Fossils of Hyrachyus eximus found in North America date to this period. This small hornless ancestor resembled a tapir or small horse more than a rhino. Three families, sometimes grouped together as the superfamily Rhinocerotoidea, evolved in the late Eocene, namely the Hyracodontidae, Amynodontidae and Rhinocerotidae.

And if you feel you're ready for it go here

Please tell me if that quote is supposed to be some kind of evidence, its a statement that states something. There is no evidence in that quote at all. How can you not see that
It makes assumptions, like drops of water fill buckets, problem is evolution is not water drops into a bucket.

Yes thankyou for the unicorn thing, it may well be a Rhino or possibly some other extinct species that has no fossil record discovered.
I dont know.

Again you missed my point entirely, to say a biblical unicorn was a horse with a horn is misunderstanding the word unicorn. Uni = single, Cornus = horn so any animal with a single horn is fine

originally posted by: borntowatch

It doesnt make me the same as them, makes them the same as me, thanks for clarifying my point, thought I had done that though....thought that was my point

I have no idea what point you're trying to make actually. You seem to be just babbling a bunch of insults at everyone as far as I can tell so I have to assume your point is to troll everyone.

I have better things to do so I'll leave you to your business of trolling ATS and showing off your ignorance for everyone.

Personally I think this thread should be closed and yourself banned for wasting everyone's time and being a stain on ATS. You have yet to provide anything useful yet and are now just trolling people who try to join in a conversation with you. Why you're still here I have no idea but I'm sure given enough time you'll screw that up too.

Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest lie ever told on ATS:

originally posted by: borntowatch

Hey you can shut me up with some good solid sound evidence

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Science is being corrected yet again....


Secondly, and having said that, I would like to see the research from MIT that you are talking about. I don't understand how the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection be the drivers of abiogenesis (living material from non-living material; i.e., the origin of life).

If MIT's findings based on their research claims that mutation and natural selection were what cause abiogenesis, then I would really need to understand what they mean by that before accepting their findings as potentially valid.

The MIT Physicist behind this new research is Jeremy England. If you run a google search online you will see what his new theory is all about, and it supports the OP argument concerning -

...the issue of evolution comes up and the anti creationists resort to a common "abiogenesis is not evolution" stance.

Here is a link providing more information on the research, the theory and the findings.

www.quantamagazine.org...


And here is my own summary of that information for the benefit of you and others:


Why does life exist? This new research headed by Jeremy aims to answer questions concerning the origin of life. An essential difference between living things and non-living things is the ability to capture energy from a surrounding environment and dissipate that energy in the form of heat. This process is better performed by livings things.

Jeremy has come up with a mathematical formula that explains this capacity to store and dissipate energy.

This formula indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy it will tend to restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,

Jeremy’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution. He is saying that from the perspective of physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a wider phenomenon.

a reply to: Barcs


Many people on ATS take science as pure fact, they swear by it. But they conveniently forget that science can always be disproven, yet the same people push the theory of evolution forward as if it is irrefutable. Regardless, I'm not here to address that issue, I am here to bring to light information that relates non-living matter and the theory of evolution; as many of you are dismissing the possibility that they could be linked.

Here is a link to more information on the research and theory, worth the read.

www.quantamagazine.org...

You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,

Jeremy’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution. He is saying that from the perspective of physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a wider phenomenon.

England’s theoretical results are generally considered valid. It is his interpretation — that his formula represents the driving force behind a class of phenomena in nature that includes life — that remains unproven. But already, there are ideas about how to test that interpretation in the lab.

For the same reasons you cannot prove evolution based on observation, you cannot dismiss any of the claims put forward by this new theory and research.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

Many people on ATS take science as pure fact, they swear by it. But they conveniently forget that science can always be disproven, yet the same people push the theory of evolution forward as if it is irrefutable.

That's a lie. Science is the evolution of information. How could it be static?

a reply to: Peeple

Exactly.

originally posted by: Answer
Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest lie ever told on ATS:

originally posted by: borntowatch

Hey you can shut me up with some good solid sound evidence

It's astounding that this post has not been moderated.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

why? we gave him proof, didn't change anything, so it is the truth. What are you, pro or con truth?

a reply to: Barcs

It's right here on his website:

richarddawkins.net...

How can you miss it...

a reply to: Peeple

Can you stop trying to start a confrontation with me and stick to the topic?

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Here is a link providing more information on the research, the theory and the findings.

www.quantamagazine.org...

Ok -- but it's just as I said. Jeremy England's new theory of abiogenesis does not claim that life started through the mechanisms of mutations and natural selection as described by Darwin and others while explaining how species can evolve.

England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”

Rather, England is claiming that a separate underlying mechanism may be behind both abiogenesis AND the evolution of species. The difference is subtle but in fact is real. It is still a fact (even if we assume that Jeremy England's ideas are valid) that the theory of Evolution in its current form does NOT attempt to explain abiogenesis.

Maybe someday science will be able to unify Theories on abiogenesis with the theories of Evolution of species, and this research by Jeremy England may be a start of that. However, they are not unified yet; current Darwinism theories of how species evolve does not attempt to explain how life started in the first place, just how that life changes over time.

That's part of the self-correcting scientific process. Science is continually attempting to refine what it thinks it knows.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Science isn't absolute unchanging irrefutable fact, but it leads us in that direction. Denial of evolution, however, at this point after 150+ years of research is a bit silly. You might as well deny gravity. I mean have you ever directly observed it or have you only seen its effects? There are numerous things that could have falsified evolution by now, yet not a single one of them has happened in all this time, in fact it has been the exact opposite. New fields of science that didn't exist at the time evolution was proposed have independently verified it as well.

The hypothesis you mentioned is the exact one that I was thinking about and it certainly isn't proven yet and hasn't called for a rewrite of evolution to include non living matter. Scientific theories don't get altered that majorly without the phenomena in question being proven and confirmed. Even on Dawkins site it doesn't claim evolution is being rewritten. They are considering what this hypothesis could mean IF CONFIRMED AND PROVEN.

Also evolution can be verified via observation. An observation in science is not always watching something live, it is observing the evidence and seeing what can be learned from it. The fossil record is massive, and genetics is growing fast. You don't have to have lived 65 million years ago to know that an object hit the earth causing massive devastation and extinctions. We can look at the crater and run tests on the debris and look at the chemical reactions, we can examine the fossil layer and see when it happened. We can reasonably and logically understand that this happened, without being there live to watch it hit the earth.

It's right here on his website:

richarddawkins.net...

How can you miss it...

The title of the article threw me off. It's interesting to think about, but it's not proven yet.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: Peeple

Can you stop trying to start a confrontation with me and stick to the topic?

The way I see it, you confronted him because you suggested his post needed moderation.

If something is true, it is not insulting or defamatory. Borntowatch has been presented with numerous evidence and reasoned explanations since the beginning of this thread, and he pretends they don't exist and still claims it hasn't been presented. That would be a lie. If the shoe fits.....

a reply to: Barcs

Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest lie ever told on ATS

The biggest lie ever told on ATS...

The biggest lie...

ATS is pretty big...

Is this really okay to be said?

I have been moderated recently for saying far less than this, I said something along the lines of 'the most ignorant thing I have seen thus far''

Not the the most ignorant thing currently on ATS...

ETA: Furthermore this is not in line with the terms and conditions of ATS as outlined in article:

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

To bring this in to context, Answer is making an unfounded claim (biggest lie out of 18,918,600 posts) that is defamatory; the fact that it was used in such a large front is a form of harassment and slander (being libelous).

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I would rank it up there with one of the fattest lies on ATS. It is literally the polar opposite of his actual intent. Get over it already.

a reply to: GetHyped

Me also.
Thing is people show evidence and correct them with the evidence they show and continue to lie.
They can't evolve I for one If wrong will hold up my hands and say "yup you got me" but the stubbornness shown by these folk is staggering.
I just can't understand that they actually believe the world is 7000 years old and the Bible is true to the word.
It is like they have learnt (or been told) to just read this book and ignore the world around them.