What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

He truly believes that paleontologists merely line up fossils in accord with their presupposition of evolution and call it done--without confirming that assumption with information from other scientific disciplines.

Quit lying about me. If I was so inclined you could be reported for flaming.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The experts disagree with each other constantly about the bones and what they mean. Yes there's guesswork involved.

I suspect that you already know the difference between a guess and that which you rely on every day to not fall on your face, but keep posting.

 

[Job 33:6]

Quit lying about me. If I was so inclined you could be reported for flaming.

So you don't believe that scientists are lining up fossils based on presuppositions of evolution?

 

[renniks]

So you don't believe that scientists are lining up fossils based on presuppositions of evolution?

I think it's been tried and failed. Now they have to admit that there's no clear linage.

 

[Speedwell]

Quit lying about me. If I was so inclined you could be reported for flaming.

I beg your pardon, but you do kind of give that impression. If I am wrong I apologize. But I really don't understand where you are coming from. You are apparently arguing against evolution but not clearly for anything in particular; what do you envision happening if you succeed?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Quit lying about me. If I was so inclined you could be reported for flaming.

Actually we would like to see some evidence that Speedwell's conclusion is wrong. Have you any evidence for your assertion about Speedwell?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think it's been tried and failed. Now they have to admit that there's no clear linage.

Sounds like speedwell provided an accurate description then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's been tried and failed. Now they have to admit that there's no clear linage.

Citation needed.

 

[renniks]

Citation needed.

Citation? The so-called evolutionary tree is now admitted to be a bush, a bunch of rabbit trails that don't lead us to any clear linage between apes and humans. So-called neanderthals bred with so-called homo sapiens. There are in reality only two lines, those who are pure apes and those who are homo sapaian.

 

[Frank Robert]

Citation? The so-called evolutionary tree is now admitted to be a bush,

I am going to give you a half truth because it is what you are attempting to imply. Science moved from a tree to a bush because evolution is more complex than than the model would have it.

a bunch of rabbit trails that don't lead us to any clear linage between apes and humans.

No one is claiming it does. Again a half truth.

So-called neanderthals bred with so-called homo sapiens.

Another half truth. Neanderthals are a species of homos just like homo sapiens.

There are in reality only two lines, those who are pure apes and those who are homo sapaian.

False. There is evidence interbreeding between several human species from studies of ancient DNA such as:
Early modern humans and Neanderthals
Humans and Neanderthals
Humans and Denisovans
Neanderthals and Denisovans
Denisovans and a 'ghost' population of hominins

Please let us know when you come up with a creationist theory that better fits the evidence and makes better predictions than the ToE.

 

[Speedwell]

Citation? The so-called evolutionary tree is now admitted to be a bush, a bunch of rabbit trails that don't lead us to any clear linage between apes and humans. So-called neanderthals bred with so-called homo sapiens. There are in reality only two lines, those who are pure apes and those who are homo sapaian.

What, exactly, is a pure ape? Aren't all members of the family Hominoidea pure apes? What would constitute an impurity?

 

[Shemjaza]

Citation? The so-called evolutionary tree is now admitted to be a bush, a bunch of rabbit trails that don't lead us to any clear linage between apes and humans. So-called neanderthals bred with so-called homo sapiens. There are in reality only two lines, those who are pure apes and those who are homo sapaian.

What on earth is a Homo erectus or a Homo habilis?

These aren't made up creatures... there isn't any kind of clear line between "human" and "ape".

(Unless the only trait that matter is a pointy nose).

 

[renniks]

Early modern humans and Neanderthals
Humans and Neanderthals
Humans and Denisovans
Neanderthals and Denisovans
Denisovans and a 'ghost' population of hominins

Where's there any evidence that Denisovans aren't just a genetic variation of neanderthals? Scientists throw all these distinctions in, as if they are a different species, but their DNA still exists in some modern humans. As far as we know they are members of a large interbreeding population, just varients of homo sapiens.

 

[renniks]

What on earth is a Homo erectus or a Homo habilis?

These aren't made up creatures... there isn't any kind of clear line between "human" and "ape".

(Unless the only trait that matter is a pointy nose).

Variants of a single species.

 

[Speedwell]

Variants of a single species.

Variants which may have been undergoing the lengthy processes of speciation. Much common DNA also exists after speciation.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Where's there any evidence that Denisovans aren't just a genetic variation of neanderthals? Scientists throw all these distinctions in, as if they are a different species, but their DNA still exists in some modern humans. As far as we know they are members of a large interbreeding population, just varients of homo sapiens.

Hom Sapiens is not a single species.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is us.
Homo Sapiens Neandertalis is Neandertals.
Homo Sapiens Denosovi is Denonsovans.
And yes, these three species of human could and did interbreed.
And all three were descended from Archaic Homo Sapiens. Another now extinct species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Citation? The so-called evolutionary tree is now admitted to be a bush, a bunch of rabbit trails that don't lead us to any clear linage between apes and humans. So-called neanderthals bred with so-called homo sapiens. There are in reality only two lines, those who are pure apes and those who are homo sapaian.

So as usual you cannot support your claim. No rabbit holes, simply ideas that you won't let yourself understand. It appears that you are afraid that if you did understand that you would lose your current beliefs.

Now you are adding more claims that you need to support. When you say "So'called neanderthals <sic>" you would need to prove that they are not what scientists say that they are.

Instead of making claims that you cannot support based upon your ignorance you should be asking questions and trying to learn.

 

[Frank Robert]

Where's there any evidence that Denisovans aren't just a genetic variation of neanderthals? Scientists throw all these distinctions in, as if they are a different species, but their DNA still exists in some modern humans. As far as we know they are members of a large interbreeding population, just varients of homo sapiens.

Go back and read what you claimed.
Then do your own research into the difference among different species, of homo and the evidence supporting that they are species. Then you will have no reason to make false claims.

Please let us know when you have come up with a better creationist theory than the ToE.

 

[renniks]

Variants which may have been undergoing the lengthy processes of speciation. Much common DNA also exists after speciation.

Lol, or a single species with variations, which is looking at it more logically, but it doesn't fit the presuppositions of Darwinism.

"It is now well-established that gene flow occurred among various ancient hominin groups over the past several hundred thousand years. The most well-studied example of archaic gene flow is the interbreeding that occurred when humans migrated out of Africa and came into contact with Neanderthals in Eurasia roughly 50,000 years ago [1, 2]. This event left a genetic legacy in modern humans that persists today; indeed, 1–3% of the DNA of living humans descended from non-African populations, such as Europeans or East Asians, can be traced to Neanderthals [3]. We also now know that an extinct sister group to the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, intermixed with early modern humans in Asia, leaving behind genomic fragments that comprise 2–4% of the DNA of modern Oceanian humans [4–6].
Mapping gene flow between ancient hominins through demography-aware inference of the ancestral recombination graph

Yes, we now have DNA from multiple genetic lines of humans. But we all came from a common ancestor. His name was Adam.

 

[renniks]

Go back and read what you claimed.
Then do your own research into the difference among different species, of homo and the evidence supporting that they are species. Then you will have no reason to make false claims.

Please let us know when you have come up with a better creationist theory than the ToE.

Well, that was lame.