What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is us.

We're just subspecies now, are we?

 

[renniks]

And all three were descended from Archaic Homo Sapiens. Another now extinct species

Yes, they all descended from a common ancestor that hasn't been discovered. Which fits perfectly with Creation.

 

[Mr Laurier]

We're just subspecies now, are we?

No. Go back and read the words I actually posted. Unlike you, I dont use words as a convoluted code for other words.

 

[Mr Laurier]

We're just subspecies now, are we?

No. Go back and read the words I actually posted. Unlike you, I dont use words as a convoluted code for other words.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Wow. I accidentally triple posted

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Go back and read the words I actually posted. Unlike you, I dont use words as a convoluted code for other words.

In the term "Homo sapiens sapiens," is the second "sapiens" a subspecies?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Yes, they all descended from a common ancestor that hasn't been discovered. Which fits perfectly with Creation.

Except they have been discovered. Read a source published AFTER 1890.

 

[Mr Laurier]

In the term "Homo sapiens sapiens," is the second "sapiens" a subspecies?

No. It is not

 

[AV1611VET]

No. It is not

Yes. It is.

Homo sapiens sapiens, in anthropology and paleontology, the subspecies of Homo sapiens that consists of the only living members of genus Homo, modern human beings.

SOURCE

 

[renniks]

Except they have been discovered. Read a source published AFTER 1890.

"An obsession with turning each new fossil into a distinct species has clouded the biological reality that we are now retrieving." (Clive Finlayson) 2010

 

[Frank Robert]

Well, that was lame.

It is the fairest advice I can offer you. You jump from falsehood to falsehood and when others here try to correct you just jump to another falsehood. I and others can point your what you don't appear to understand but we can not do the necessary work for you that you need to come up to speed about evolution. If you want to have a serious discussion on evolution you need to understand it even if you don't agree with it. Jon Perry has a series of videos on evolution named Stated Clearly, all are well illustrated and he doesn't make cracks about religion or creationism.

 

[Frank Robert]

Yes, they all descended from a common ancestor that hasn't been discovered. Which fits perfectly with Creation.

Another half truth. It is true that evolution may not have the fossil of a common ancestor but there is DNA evidence for a common ancestor which shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million. Creationism offers a religious belief which is not evidence.

Please let us know when you have an alternate theory for evolution that better fits in with the evidence and makes better predictions than the ToE.

 

[renniks]

It is true that evolution may not have the fossil of a common ancestor but there is DNA evidence for a common ancestor which shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million

We certainly did have a common ancestor. His name is Adam. But you are grasping at straws. They keep trying to force the evidence into a 'goo to you' framework but it won't fit.
To transform an ape into human would require vast numbers of biological changes and each biological change would require large numbers of codependent sets of mutations resulting in new genetic programming. A large amount of new biological information must somehow arise in a very short evolutionary timeline. The darwinian mutation selection process cannot build information networks containing vast amounts of very specific prescriptive information. Information systems and detail biological specifications cannot arise spontaneously.

 

[Frank Robert]

"An obsession with turning each new fossil into a distinct species has clouded the biological reality that we are now retrieving." (Clive Finlayson) 2010

Here is the complete quote. "The great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr proposed it for the human species as far back as 1950! An obsession with turning each new fossil into a distinct species has clouded the biological reality that we are now retrieving."

Mayr based his understanding of species and their ability to interbreed which is similar to the creationists kinds.

But Mayr’s “classic definition” of a species, based on interbreeding, is riddled with exceptions.

“For all intents and purposes, they were separate species,” Bailey says, “but they maintained the ability to hybridize.” Their offspring, she argues, would have been rare and, though able to reproduce, less successful in reproducing compared with their parents. The genetic record, then, indicates that some hybrids did sometimes succeed, contributing Neanderthal DNA to the modern human gene pool.
Source...​

 

[Shemjaza]

Variants of a single species.

Okay, if Homo habilis is a human, where's this fabled border between "pure human" and "pure ape"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that was lame.

It really was not since there is no scientific evidence for creationism and there are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, they all descended from a common ancestor that hasn't been discovered. Which fits perfectly with Creation.

No, it does not since there is no "hypothesis of creation". You are now just making ad hoc explanations to defend the failure of your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We certainly did have a common ancestor. His name is Adam. But you are grasping at straws. They keep trying to force the evidence into a 'goo to you' framework but it won't fit.
To transform an ape into human would require vast numbers of biological changes and each biological change would require large numbers of codependent sets of mutations resulting in new genetic programming. A large amount of new biological information must somehow arise in a very short evolutionary timeline. The darwinian mutation selection process cannot build information networks containing vast amounts of very specific prescriptive information. Information systems and detail biological specifications cannot arise spontaneously.

And you shoot yourself in the foot again. There was no transformation from ape to human. You are still an ape.

 

[renniks]

And you shoot yourself in the foot again. There was no transformation from ape to human. You are still an ape.

Lol, right. Lets look at the actual differences between apes and "neanderthals" or modern humans or any of the homo sapiens. Yes, the ape and human genomes are similar but at the same time, the genetic differences are huge. We are talking 30 million "letter" differences if the genomes differ just 1 percent. But the 1 or 2 percent difference so often claimed is wrong. When multi-nucleotide differences are included the differences are closer to 10 percent. That's a huge amount of human-specifying information. There are also serious ape\human differences that transcend DNA sequences. (Differential Nucleosome formation, 3D DNA structure, DNA methylation, transcription, RNA splicing, RNA editing and more.

Paleoanthropologists might not consider this information at all, as it's not really their field. Just the change of an ape foot to the configuration of a human foot is an extremely complex genetic undertaking.
Of course, this is just the tip of the ice burg. A human foot on an ape-like body doesn't work. The feet, legs' knees, hips, backbone, neck, and brain would all have to be genetically rewired. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but 6 million years is not enough time for a specific nucleotide to be replaced by a specific alternative nucleotide, and for this change to become permanent. If only five mutations were required the waiting time would exceed the currently estimated age of the earth. But of course, you will have to do your own research on that. Suffice it to say that I don't believe in evolution doing miracles.

 

[Frank Robert]

The Genealogical Adam and Eve Endorsements

We certainly did have a common ancestor. His name is Adam. But you are grasping at straws. They keep trying to force the evidence into a 'goo to you' framework but it won't fit.

Evolution does not preclude an Adam and Eve. See: The Genealogical Adam and Eve and Reviews and Interviews and Endorsements. The reviews, interviews and endorsements are with Theologians & Christian Apologists like William Lane Craig (video) and Secular scientists like Nathan Lents (Upcoming book leaves scientific possibility for existence of 'Adam and Eve' - USA Today)

To transform an ape into human

There is no need for me to discuss this falsehood with you again because it has been explained several times by myself and others that evolutionary scientists have NEVER claimed that apes transformed into humans only that we have a common ancestor with chimps. If you won't take the time to learn evolution, even if you disagree with it, it is impossible for myself and others discuss evolution with you.