What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, if Homo habilis is a human, where's this fabled border between "pure human" and "pure ape"?
The border is the vast genetic differences between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens. Whenever well-preserved hominin skeletons are found, they can be readily identified as one or the other genus. So why should we assume one transitioned into another at some point?
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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. 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.
If you insist on distinctions with no difference, that might technically be correct, although it seems Darwin predicted just that. A common ancestor amount to the same problem.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you insist on distinctions with no difference, that might technically be correct, although it seems Darwin predicted just that. A common ancestor amount to the same problem.
Darwin lived close to 2 centuries ago. The problems that I noticed creationist face is their sources almost never update their knowledge base on evolution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Darwin lived close to 2 centuries ago. The problems that I noticed creationist face is their sources almost never update their knowledge base on evolution.
I'm working with information and sources put out as little as three years ago...
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
None of your claims without proper support need any refutations. A mere "You're wrong." is sufficient.

How the differences are measured is important. Some changes in our genome are very minor. Most of our genome is noncoding DNA. Changes in that rarely makes any difference, whether positive or negative. That is why they concentrated on the parts that matter. There the difference is only one to two percent.

If you disagree with this find some real science articles that support your claims. I can run you through the math and show that the number of changes needed is not unreasonable.

I am fairly sure that you do not have any valid sources. You keep using bogus creationist terms such as "ape-like". Biologically humans are apes. Even the creationist that first developed the classification system that is still widely used today recognized this fact.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,705
10,602
71
Bondi
✟248,968.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

Why does this bush business keep coming up? If's like some gotcha moment every time it's mentioned.

Look, cladistics is enormously complex. You'd need a decent degree and a lot of study to come to grips with even a small portion of the complexity that is the connection between all life. And most people who really do understand it very well are generally concerned with small portions of the whole.

Some people with a limited understanding of the evolutionary process (no names here) need the explanations to be as simple as possible so that they can get a grasp of the concept. So not so long ago, evolution was indicated as some kind of ladder, with unicellular life on the lowest rung and guess who at the top.

That might be ok for primary school children (despite it wrongly suggesting that there was only one path from there to here and that we were the ultimate aim). Then people drew cute little diagrams of trees to show the various branches. Simplified to the nth degree, but that was good enough for the general population.

But if you ask enough questions and poke around a little, then that simply kid's version of a tree gets a lot more complex. To the point where someone had declared it to be more like a bush than a tree (at which point you jump in and shout 'aha!' as if getting an admission that it's very complex is some sort victory for bible literalists).

Except that even calling it a tangled bush is nowhere near close enough to describing the incredibly complexity of what is trying to be shown in a diagrammatic form. You might compare it to a family tree representing everyone who has ever lived. We are all connected in some way. But if you look at yourself and a couple of generations back, it looks like a tree. But go back a hundred generations and it'll look a real mess. More a bush than a tree.

Go back a thousand generations and it's just tangled undergrowth. But, and this is the point you fail to grasp, it's all interconnected...

So next time you claim 'it's not even a tree - it's a bush', then I will correct you. It's much, much more tangled than you can even imagine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,705
10,602
71
Bondi
✟248,968.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If you insist on distinctions with no difference, that might technically be correct, although it seems Darwin predicted just that. A common ancestor amount to the same problem.

'...that might technically be correct' would have served you better if you had admitted that you were 'technically wrong' and said so. People think less of you in the first instance but would think more of you in the second.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
The border is the vast genetic differences between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens. Whenever well-preserved hominin skeletons are found, they can be readily identified as one or the other genus. So why should we assume one transitioned into another at some point?
You don't seem to know very much about all the transitional hominids.

hominids2_small.jpg


Why don't you tell me how easy it is to clearly define "human" and "ape".

Homo habilis is D... an upright tool maker, but clearly closer in form to Australopithicus than it is to Homo sapiens.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Homo habilis is D... an upright tool maker, but clearly closer in form to Australopithicus than it is to Homo sapiens.
Clearly? Because of what? Skull shape? First the evidence for habilis is very shakey. Paleo experts have debated rather it's even a real species. The fossil evidence is fragmentary at best. Probably a mix of human and ape bones at one site.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why does this bush business keep coming up? If's like some gotcha moment every time it's mentioned.

Look, cladistics is enormously complex. You'd need a decent degree and a lot of study to come to grips with even a small portion of the complexity that is the connection between all life. And most people who really do understand it very well are generally concerned with small portions of the whole.

Some people with a limited understanding of the evolutionary process (no names here) need the explanations to be as simple as possible so that they can get a grasp of the concept. So not so long ago, evolution was indicated as some kind of ladder, with unicellular life on the lowest rung and guess who at the top.

That might be ok for primary school children (despite it wrongly suggesting that there was only one path from there to here and that we were the ultimate aim). Then people drew cute little diagrams of trees to show the various branches. Simplified to the nth degree, but that was good enough for the general population.

But if you ask enough questions and poke around a little, then that simply kid's version of a tree gets a lot more complex. To the point where someone had declared it to be more like a bush than a tree (at which point you jump in and shout 'aha!' as if getting an admission that it's very complex is some sort victory for bible literalists).

Except that even calling it a tangled bush is nowhere near close enough to describing the incredibly complexity of what is trying to be shown in a diagrammatic form. You might compare it to a family tree representing everyone who has ever lived. We are all connected in some way. But if you look at yourself and a couple of generations back, it looks like a tree. But go back a hundred generations and it'll look a real mess. More a bush than a tree.

Go back a thousand generations and it's just tangled undergrowth. But, and this is the point you fail to grasp, it's all interconnected...

So next time you claim 'it's not even a tree - it's a bush', then I will correct you. It's much, much more tangled than you can even imagine.
Useless post...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
WUT?
I never posted any bible 'tales'.
On the contrary, I mentioned flood accounts which are historically documented OUTSIDE the bible. (extra-biblical)
But not world-wide, and no evidence for them.
If you wish to waive your hands and simply dismiss something as a mere "fabrication", then (ironically) it is you who are the one making stuff up. You are literally creating a myth of your own. Your mythology is that it never happened.
A world-wide flood 4500 years ago would leave a mark.
You have presented none.
There is evidence. That you find the evidence unpersuasive doesn't give you the right to re-define the definition of the word "evidence". Or to declare a victory of your own.
Yes it does.

But none presented. Of course.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The experts disagree with each other constantly about the bones and what they mean.
Then I eagerly await several such examples that I know I will never actually get.
Yes there's guesswork involved.
See above.

I'm sure it was a mistake, but you seem to have forgotten to address all of the stuff in red:


So what? I've skinned more animals than 99 perfect of the people on here. I know bone structure.
Do you, now?

OK - tell us all about this bone:
edmontosaurus-annectens.jpg


Have you dissected any humans? Other mammals? Fish? Amphibians? And have you identified their organs AND their bones and been tested on them?

I have. I can guarantee that I can run circles around you in terms of your bone skills. Now stop pretending and get to it! Tell us what that bone above is.
A fossilized bone from an extinct animal is not gonna tell you what DNA it had,
Great observation. Interestingly, I did not mention anything like that. Nice dodge!
what fur, or lack of fur or hair or even exact size and shape.
So I guess you just totally ignored what I wrote and are running with your layman's "troof"? Based on skinning some animals?:scratch:
A whole skeleton construction from a leg bone and some teeth? You don't even know the skull shape. Guesswork is inevitable.

Like I said.... Why is it that you ilk always ignore or reject context?

That bone above that I eagerly await your world-class anatomical discussion of - people that have actual relevant experience and knowledge can identify that type of bone. Given its shape and structure, and the estimated timeframe in which the creature it belonged to lived, an actually knowledgeable person who is not desperate to prop up a failing ancient middle eastern belief system could narrow down the type of creature that it belonged to. And given the size of the bone, they could estimate how large the creature was.
There is "guesswork" like what you have done in this thread (based on ignorance and bias) and the guesswork an educated professional would be capable of given the same material.

You dismiss reconstructions because you are too under-educated to understand how it all works, thus you project your own incompetency onto all. How special of you.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Can I make a guess based on 9th grade biology and internet observation?
Digital joint bone, not ancient, as not fossilised to my eye. scale unknown so no clue to ultimate size.
Nice try (incorrect, though).
I will reveal the TRUUUUTH after rennicks condescends to explain it in great detail - what with her voluminous experience in 'skinning animals'.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Quit lying about me. If I was so inclined you could be reported for flaming.
It does seem to be a good description of what you think. And not just on that particular issue. Look at your claim re: bones and such.

It is OK to be wrong about things. It is not OK to be wrong but insist you are right and that your uninformed opinions carry the same weight as those with actual relevant backgrounds and experience.
But that is what creationists do. Ignored stuff in red:

So what? I've skinned more animals than 99 perfect of the people on here. I know bone structure.
Do you, now?

OK - tell us all about this bone:
edmontosaurus-annectens.jpg


Have you dissected any humans? Other mammals? Fish? Amphibians? And have you identified their organs AND their bones and been tested on them?

I have. I can guarantee that I can run circles around you in terms of your bone skills. Now stop pretending and get to it! Tell us what that bone above is.

A fossilized bone from an extinct animal is not gonna tell you what DNA it had,
Great observation. Interestingly, I did not mention anything like that. Nice dodge!

what fur, or lack of fur or hair or even exact size and shape.
So I guess you just totally ignored what I wrote and are running with your layman's "troof"? Based on skinning some animals?:scratch:
A whole skeleton construction from a leg bone and some teeth? You don't even know the skull shape. Guesswork is inevitable.

Like I said.... Why is it that you ilk always ignore or reject context?

That bone above that I eagerly await your world-class anatomical discussion of - people that have actual relevant experience and knowledge can identify that type of bone. Given its shape and structure, and the estimated timeframe in which the creature it belonged to lived, an actually knowledgeable person who is not desperate to prop up a failing ancient middle eastern belief system could narrow down the type of creature that it belonged to. And given the size of the bone, they could estimate how large the creature was.
There is "guesswork" like what you have done in this thread (based on ignorance and bias) and the guesswork an educated professional would be capable of given the same material.

You dismiss reconstructions because you are too under-educated to understand how it all works, thus you project your own incompetency onto all. How special of you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0