What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Speedwell]

But those feathers had to have evolved from scales at some point or evolve from something else at some point. Unless you are hypothesizing that the earliest life according to TOE had feathers, you need to show how feathers evolved from scales or hair.

Fossils don't prove evolution- they prove existence.

The hypothesis is that theropods evolved into birds. That is accepted but not empirically tested so it falls outside of the scientific method of establishing scientific fact. so it remains just an educated hypothesis that will remain unprovable. It is a philosophical belief of most scientists.

They cannot demonstrate solid bone to avian hollow bone
they cannot show jaw to beak
they cannot show scales to feathers.
they cannot demonstrate the change in instinct from runner to flyer
The change in the respiratory system
The change in organs necessary
The change required to go from running to perching
I could go on but I think you get the picture. They just fill in teh gaps with educated guesses without solid evidence.

That is why we see in so many peer approved scientific journal and research the standard terms like

appear,
we think
may have
could have
possibly

And yet they call it proven with those words.

Amnd please list a few of my "demonstrated errors."

The third error which strikes me is the implicit assumption that if evolution is falsified Special Creation must be true by default. That is not how things work in the sciences. A theory is falsified by the discovery of new evidence which it cannot explain. Once a theory is falsified it stays falsified. A falsification of thermodynamics, say, would not revive the already falsified Phlogiston theory of heat. The same is true of evolution, which explained evidence which Special Creation could not. A subsequent failure of evolutionary theory would not remediate the earlier failure of Special Creation.

 

[Brightmoon]

Feather hair and scales have a common ancestry

 

[Shemjaza]

No, a computer is superior than an old television and this has nothing to do with human nature or less about nazism or something, is just an observation.

We were talking about animals not machines.

Machines have a defined purpose that humans built them for. This also allows us to create specific metrics and situations in order to rank them.

How do you rank animals?

 

[Strathos]

We were talking about animals not machines.

Machines have a defined purpose that humans built them for. This also allows us to create specific metrics and situations in order to rank them.

How do you rank animals?

This guy does it:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHsRtomD4twRf5WVHHk-cMw

 

[nolidad]

Yes, the theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed so many times that it is treated as a fact. Just like gravity.

Well then this ought to be easy.

Show the tests that prove that mutations took us from microbe to man.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well then this ought to be easy.

Show the tests that prove that mutations took us from microbe to man.

You dont understand even the basics of science and we are not responsible for your education.

 

[nolidad]

We have multiple indicators of warm bloodedness. (It's science. Surely you have been told we don't prove things in science. We determine the most probable explanation. ) So, off the top of my head:

• Several examples of feathered dinosaurs have been found.
• The microstructure of bones is consistent with warm blooded creatures, but inconsistent with cold blooded ones. (This one is key.)
  
• Life style determined from a range of observations (anatomy [gross & detailed], dentition, stomach contents, taphonomy, preservation state including damage, associated fauna, depositional environment,etc.) has been subject to an energy budget analysis that points strongly to warm bloodedness.

But are those feathered dinos in teh supposed line that became birds?
And if evolutionists believe they are- then all they did is kick the can further down teh road. show when scales evolved into feathers.

If those dinos were warm blooded, then show the ancestor that evolved from cold blooded to warm blooded. It doesn't matter which critter- it is supposed to have happened show show the how!

As for your third dotted point- cite please?

 

[nolidad]

Vertebrate palaeontology isn't my speciality. Have you bothered to research the matter yourself? Seek and ye shall find. That would be the honest thing to do. However, let me know if you've avoided that and I'll undertake the literature search on your behalf. It won't make you look good, but that's your problem.

Oh I have looked at teh hypotheses of what they think may have occurred. But there is no real evidence that it did occur. Just a belief that it did.

 

[nolidad]

No, you made a rather ignorant and foolish demand. We don't need the mutations, we have the fossils of ancestors.

And you have been endlessly corrected. Please pay attention. When you acknowledge your errors then you can start to make demands. Unfortunately your demands demonstrate how little you know. Demanding ancient mutations is ignorant because we have no ancient DNA. We have other ways, once again actual fossilized feathered dinosaurs for example, that show you to be wrong.

And all you show is that there were fossil feathered dinos. You haven't shown the evolution of the feather from a scale via unplanned random mutations preserved by natural selection.

Once again fossils showed a critter existed. It doesn't show that it evolved. that is up tot eh imagination of the evolutionist and the paleo artist hired to paint a picture of what they think how the creature may have evolved over time.

 

[nolidad]

There is ancestral genome reconstruction which biologists use to test molecular evolutionary pathways. But it's true we don't have ancient DNA past a certain point.

And that is Jurassic Park science. take what we know of the present and postulate that everything happened the same and plug in our best guesses.

 

[Gene2memE]

systemic destruction of eco-spheres by a massive hydrological event like Noahs flood. this is very simplistic, for it would take pages to express all the tested, observed and repeated phenomena of hydraulic sortation of living creatures by floods.

We know what sort of geological patterns large scale flooding creates. We also know what sort of fossilisation patterns it produces - none of these are seen at a global scale.

How does a global flood and "hydraulic sortation" account for the fact that seed and spore bearing plants (ginko, ferns, connifers) always appear earlier in the fossil record than flowering plants? And why do bryophytes appear earlier in the record than either of the two above?

 

[Brightmoon]

Noli I gave you that hair scales feather info in # 542 . You can look up the original research and if you look at hairs and feather under a microscope you can see for yourself how similar they are. We’re giving you the information you’re asking for and you just ignore it then ask for it again a few days later. That’s denial!

 

[Gene2memE]

Well then this ought to be easy.

Show the tests that prove that mutations took us from microbe to man.

No, you show us the evidence that refutes the conclusion.

 

[nolidad]

As I said, it's the same process. We know that genetic changes occur in organisms from one generation to the next and that genetic changes lead to changes in phenotypes (e.g. biological forms). This is all directly observable in the evolutionary processes we see today.

Yes we see that all happening- but those are restricted. It does not change the genus or family of phyla or order etc.

Rats had mutative changes in NYC. Subway rats can no longer reproduce with "above ground" rats, due to mutagenic changes in the genome. that reduces the viability of the "evolved" subway rat, not advance it.

Remember the evolutionary story is constant advancement and advantage in continuously changing environments. The micro-evolutionary changes supposedly gave the "new" creature an advantage over the old one.

But going from say land mammal to whale is more artistic imagination than scientific information.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Pakicetus-the-terrestrial-Pakistan-whale.png

 

[Brightmoon]

Jurassic park science was at least superficially plausible. The concept of created separate kinds is pure fantasy and based mainly on ignorance of natural phenomena. While that type of ignorance was ok in the Bronze Age and harmless up until the 17th century , it’s ridiculous and dangerous now . That type of ignorance can cause famines, and medial emergencies. All you have to do is look at the response to this pandemic. People who are better educated in the sciences are protecting themselves from it and science illiterates aren’t .

 

[nolidad]

No, you show us the evidence that refutes the conclusion.

First you can't prove a negative.

Second, evolutionists themselves have proven mutation can only go so far in invoking "change in any creature.

50,000 generations of e-coli bacteria in a carefully controlled designed enviornment brought about just a change of diet for the bacteria (which was simply a preexisting protein changing its on/off position -no new information needed)

100 years of fruit fly experiments. All sorts of aberrations and bizarre fruit flies! But of the few that survived- they reproduced some grotesque offspring, but those off spring were still all fruit flies! And of those offspring? The ones that were able to reproduce (once again a proven fact of mutations is that all mutations tend to lower the viability of a population not advance it) they produced normal fruit flies!

No advancement of the species . No adding information to change the the genus or family of the original parent.

I can list many more experiments that failed to invoke darwinian (macro) evolution. So evolution (microbes to man) has failed to be tested successfully, repeated or observed.

 

[nolidad]

Yes, they had to evolve from scales at one point. The fact is that we know it happened because there is a fossil record of it. In fact the oldest feather fossils are the simplest. Just a general plume. Which is what is to be expected. If you asked proper questions I would provide evidence.

Well a "general plume" is not proof that a scale turned to a feather. A "general plume" is still far different inconstruction and even the collagen used in a scale or scute.

So now because I don't ask my questions properly you wish to snub me? Okay then, I will know to just let your responses go by as I am too inferior to you. I may not have the scientific jargon down well, but you know exactly what I am asking.

It appears that maybe you do not want a debate, but maybe are on a seek and destroy mission.

 

[Brightmoon]

Noli if you don’t understand it just say so . None of these creationist memes are an accurate description of how evolution works . And that’s the first problem . Creationists have their own ridiculous fantasy ideas of evolution . You’ve heard one of those fantasy views . They’re simply wrong . If you want to understand mainstream evolution you’ll have to set aside those silly creationist ideas . If you don’t understand something just ask

 

[nolidad]

The third error which strikes me is the implicit assumption that if evolution is falsified Special Creation must be true by default. That is not how things work in the sciences. A theory is falsified by the discovery of new evidence which it cannot explain. Once a theory is falsified it stays falsified. A falsification of thermodynamics, say, would not revive the already falsified Phlogiston theory of heat. The same is true of evolution, which explained evidence which Special Creation could not. A subsequent failure of evolutionary theory would not remediate the earlier failure of Special Creation.

Well we haven't even gotten to teh science supporting Divine Creation so you are ten steps ahead.

Well Poppers falsification principle fails. Example: a hypothesis "All swans are white". Proven false by seeing a black swan. Ergo no longer scientific for it has been falsified.

Another hypothesis: All swans are not white. If one swan is found not white- this hypothesis cannot be falsified and thus unfalsifiable. Does this make this hypothesis unscientific?

And Special Creation was not until the last 70 years subjected to the same kind of research and study as evolution has enjoyed. Evolutionary sciences have far more adherents and receive magnitudes more funding. But where "creation science" has researched and studied and tested, they have falsified many of the tenets of evolution.

so the new tool of "well they are not real scientists" or "they publish in not respected peer reviewed journals" were born!

Well they are real scientists, and when the "accepted journals" are controlled by scientists who believe in evolution and disbelieve special creation can be possible- they will never get their hearing in those journals.

Kind of like the Russia hoax pulled on Trump. It was proven that there was no collusion, but the "repsepcted" media wouldn't air the facts. Only the disrespected "Fox news" aired the facts. so many still believe that Trump and russia colluded when the facts are it was Hillary and the DNC that colluded by spending money to create the phony steele dossier. now this is just for example purposes to show why rebuttal of established evolutionary dogma will never get the full light of day in the "well respected journals".

 

[Brightmoon]

The short version is that Scales evolved into feathers has been demonstrated by many scientific experiments involving genetics and developmental biology. Both Feathers and scales are made of beta keratin .
The long version is you look up and understand beta keratin, developmental biology, placodes, how genes work, and theropod phylogenics .
We understand very well that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink!