What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[tas8831]

The eastern coyote has gone through several genetic changes just in my lifetime. But they are still coyotes, and if they breed with dogs or wolves until they are something else, they are still canines.

Citations please.

Man is a special creation of God. And ape is just another animal.

An act of begging the question followed by a mere assertion.
Color me not surprised.

 

[tas8831]

But they are. Unless you can show me a half feline, half canine.

Why would you expect someone to be able to provide evidence for this silly strawman caricature you put forth?

 

[renniks]

No such thing. The common ancestor of the canines and felines was neither one.

Then it had DNA of both?

 

[renniks]

Why would you expect someone to be able to provide evidence for this silly strawman caricature you put forth?

Because one has to transition from something to something to get something.

 

[Speedwell]

Then it had DNA of both?

No, it had its own DNA. You're not making Platonistic assumptions about "canine-ness" and "feline-ness" are you?

 

[tas8831]

Because one has to transition from something to something to get something.

Straw man fallacy:

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.​

Your implication does not reflect any hypotheses of the descent of cats or dogs.
You can start here:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

For an in-depth treatment of the evidence-supported phylogeny of these carnivores, see this:
http://ezlab.zrc-sazu.si/uploads/2011/05/Agnarssonal2010_Carnivora.pdf

Happy to explain.

 

[renniks]

No, it had its own DNA. You're not making Platonistic assumptions about "canine-ness" and "feline-ness" are you?

You still have to get both from the same creature. You all sure like to dance around the obvious implications.

 

[dlamberth]

Because one has to transition from something to something to get something.

I think "evolved" is the word to use, not "transition".

 

[Speedwell]

Because one has to transition from something to something to get something.

In this case when the carnivores split into the caniformia and the feliformia where branches of each line became, respectively, dogs and cats.

 

[Speedwell]

You still have to get both from the same creature. You all sure like to dance around the obvious implications.

Why do you think that would be a problem?

 

[renniks]

In this case when the carnivores split into the caniformia and the feliformia where branches of each line became, respectively, dogs and cats.

Prove it. Or did they always exist as separate kinds?

 

[tas8831]

Then it had DNA of both?

Humans and chimps have ~96% of their DNA in common, depending on what criteria are employed.
No 1 organism has 'its own' DNA. We all have DNA as our genetic material, and we all "share" at least some of it.

 

[tas8831]

Prove it.

http://ezlab.zrc-sazu.si/uploads/2011/05/Agnarssonal2010_Carnivora.pdf

Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia)

Or did they always exist as separate kinds?

No, that is silly.

 

[Speedwell]

Prove it. Or did they always exist as separate kinds?

And one of the branches of Panthera became the common housecat, but Panthera is a really bushy family tree and the image would have to be very large. Look it up if you're interested.

 

[renniks]

And one of the branches of Panthera became the common housecat, but Panthera is a really bushy family tree and the image would have to be very large. Look it up if you're interested.

That's not proof...that's a diagram.
I can make diagrams too.

 

[renniks]

No, that is silly.

No more silly than someone claiming to know what animals were around 64 million years ago

 

[Speedwell]

That's not proof...that's a diagram.
I can make diagrams too.

Sure you can. But will they fit the available evidence; fossils, genetics, morphology, etc.?

 

[Speedwell]

No more silly than someone claiming to know what animals were around 64 million years ago

What we know are the fossils from that period.

 

[renniks]

What we know are the fossils from that period.

If the dating methods are correct. If the guesses about what species they are are correct.

 

[Shemjaza]

But they are. Unless you can show me a half feline, half canine. Not speculation about one that existed millions of years ago.

Not how it works.

We can't show you a half lion half mountain lion, but I doubt you disbelieve in the concept of "cats".

Then it had DNA of both?

No, the common ancestor diverged in both directions.

We have transitional fossils of ancient creatures that featured rudimentary traits of both... but without the specialisations found in the modern varieties.

This is exactly supported by the genetic evidence of modern populations... the same type DNA tests that show paternity can be used to show that house cats are related to lions and more distantly related to dogs.

You still have to get both from the same creature. You all sure like to dance around the obvious implications.

You already acknowledged that DNA changes... it's just a matter of building on the initial genetics in two separate ways.

He's an analogy: language.

If you sit down a modern English speaker and a modern German speaker with a 6th century Saxon warrior no one would be able to speak to each other... despite both English and German being derived from the older Germanic language.

Maybe God is mindless to an extent that would make a virus look clever,
and physically smaller than a electron.

I don't think anyone, theist or atheist, will be content with: "There is evidence for a god... but it's a Lovecraftian expression of existential insecurity."