Falsifiability

[VirOptimus]

That is a lie. Every layman knows that Evolution is used to explain why there is life.

No, it really doesnt. Look it up.

The ToE explains diversity of life, abiogenesis deals with the start of life.

 

[Peter J Barban]

No, evolution is observed, its a fact. The ToE explains how.

This is also a basic fact that a person with your claimed credentials should know.

A fact is merely a description of one piece of reality. The description may be faulty. At one time the earth being the center of the universe was a scientific fact, as was cold fusion. Just show me how to measure evolution.

 

[Peter J Barban]

No, it really doesnt. Look it up.

The ToE explains diversity of life, abiogenesis deals with the start of life.

You really can't deny that evolution is assumed or claimed to be the answer for life on earth. Everyone knows this.

Please speak clearly and say that you do not believe that evolution explains why there is life on earth. Also, absent creation or evolution, how did life arise?

 

[Kylie]

You have missed my point by a mile. I am not arguing for creation/divine authorship of life.

I am merely examining evolution from a skeptical viewpoint rather than as a believer in evolution, such as yourself. I want to discuss the facts/lack of facts regarding evolution. I am arguing that there is no objective evidence that life arose spontaneously - which is a key component of evolution.

You would gain major integrity points if you admitted this.

No, the beginning of life is not covered in any sense by evolution, since evolution deals solely with how life forms change in order to adapt to different pressures that are placed on them as their environment changes.

Evolution is about how life changes, not how it began.

 

[VirOptimus]

You really can't deny that evolution is assumed or claimed to be the answer for life on earth. Everyone knows this.

Please speak clearly and say that you do not believe that evolution explains why there is life on earth. Also, absent creation or evolution, how did life arise?

Belief has nothing to do with it.

I’m now convinced you are lying about your credentials, your igonrance about this very basic fact together with your hard to belive claim about christian bashing by professors makes it almost certain.

 

[VirOptimus]

A fact is merely a description of one piece of reality. The description may be faulty. At one time the earth being the center of the universe was a scientific fact, as was cold fusion. Just show me how to measure evolution.

I see, you dont even know what a fact is.

 

[Kylie]

Your links do not address my point. They do not show spontaneous life generation. You are creating the straw man yourself.

Stop lying.

The links I posted were in response to you asking for a refutation of the first cause argument. I provided them. My criticisms of your post were because you used the First Cause argument, claimed that Humans were the pinnacle of evolution and that evolution can't be measured. You can't ask me to provide refutations of the first cause argument and then complain because they don't describe how life began.

1. I am examining the key claim of evolution. Evolutionary theory requires life arising from non-life. This has never been observed. Meaning that people believe it without the possibility of seeing it. That is the definition of faith.

No it doesn't. Evolution deals with how life changes due to selective pressures, and that's it. Evolution does not and has never claimed to explain where life came from in the first place.

2. You actually used the word "out-dated" regarding evolutionary theory. It is as if evolution is some kind of fad or fashion. If evolution were a science, you would say the ideas of racial evolution are "disproven". But of course, they are not disproven, not because they are true, but because evolution is such a crappy science that nobody can prove or disprove anything about it.

I used the word outdated to refer to the viewpoints and opinions of the 19th century that you had to use in order to support the idea that evolution claims humans are the pinnacle of evolution.

3. As far as I know, there are no measurements of evolution, just descriptions. Perhaps evolution is real but too complicated to measure. That still means you have faith not evidence.

Scientists compare differences in the genes between organisms to tell how closely they are related.

Evidence for evolution Read the section on Molecular Biology and Homologous genes

Comparative Genomics | Learn Science at Scitable

Looking at evolution skeptically: it is based on faith and as long it is based on faith, it is unfalsifiable.

No it isn't. You just don't understand evolution.

 

[Peter J Barban]

About genomics, I meant to deal with that earlier, but I got distracted.

Genomics is an exciting field and I am interested in what happens with it. It is definitely real science.

While genomics talks about evolution, none of its work can depend on evolution as opposed to proven fields of science. That is mostly due to the fact that evolution is slow and uncontrolled. Those properties make evolution a poor plank for experimentation and real results.

Basically, you can do genomics without evolution, just as you can create new dog breeds without evolution.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I see, you dont even know what a fact is.

Your analysis would do better on twitter. If you can't invest in a decent reply, I will ignore your future posts.

 

[VirOptimus]

About genomics, I meant to deal with that earlier, but I got distracted.

Genomics is an exciting field and I am interested in what happens with it. It is definitely real science.

While genomics talks about evolution, none of its work can depend on evolution as opposed to proven fields of science. That is mostly due to the fact that evolution is slow and uncontrolled. Those properties make evolution a poor plank for experimentation and real results.

Basically, you can do genomics without evolution, just as you can create new dog breeds without evolution.

Hahaha, no!

 

[Peter J Barban]

Stop lying.

The links I posted were in response to you asking for a refutation of the first cause argument. I provided them. My criticisms of your post were because you used the First Cause argument, claimed that Humans were the pinnacle of evolution and that evolution can't be measured. You can't ask me to provide refutations of the first cause argument and then complain because they don't describe how life began.



No it doesn't. Evolution deals with how life changes due to selective pressures, and that's it. Evolution does not and has never claimed to explain where life came from in the first place.



I used the word outdated to refer to the viewpoints and opinions of the 19th century that you had to use in order to support the idea that evolution claims humans are the pinnacle of evolution.



Scientists compare differences in the genes between organisms to tell how closely they are related.

Evidence for evolution Read the section on Molecular Biology and Homologous genes

Comparative Genomics | Learn Science at Scitable



No it isn't. You just don't understand evolution.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I asked for links that showed evidence for life arising from non-life, not more philosophy. That is what I expected you to present.

You started politely with me, but now you are abusive. If you don't change your tone, I will assume that you have nothing positive to contribute.

 

[Peter J Barban]

How do you explain practical applications of evolutionary biology as used in areas like genomics, et al?

This even includes companies that have filed patents based on the ToE. Why would they do that if it's just a "belief system"?

I have never heard of patents based on evolution. If there are any, I'd like to learn more.

 

[Kylie]

About genomics, I meant to deal with that earlier, but I got distracted.

Genomics is an exciting field and I am interested in what happens with it. It is definitely real science.

While genomics talks about evolution, none of its work can depend on evolution as opposed to proven fields of science. That is mostly due to the fact that evolution is slow and uncontrolled. Those properties make evolution a poor plank for experimentation and real results.

Basically, you can do genomics without evolution, just as you can create new dog breeds without evolution.

Creating new dog breeds is the artificial selection of particular traits. The same process is what creates evolution. You yourself just said that evolution is too slow to see very well in the space of a lifetime, and yet that explains why different breeds of dogs haven't changed enough to be called a new species.

In any case, the rate at which evolution occurs is irrelevant. The genetic evidence for evolution alone is overwhelming, regardless of how quickly evolution happens.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps you misunderstood. I asked for links that showed evidence for life arising from non-life, not more philosophy. That is what I expected you to present.

No you didn't. I was specifically referring to the first cause argument and argument from incredulity when I said they had been debunked.

You cited the first cause argument in post 297 when you claimed that life must have had something to get it started. This is the first cause argument (because you are saying that there must have been something to get it all started), and it is also the argument from incredulity (because you were essentially saying, "I can't imagine how life could have started unless something set it off, so that must have been it!"). I specifically said you were using these two arguments in my reply, which was post 328. I stated that these arguments were old and thoroughly refuted.

In your next post, you said that you were unaware that these had been refuted. So I gave examples of how the first cause argument (which I was referring to when I said it had been refuted) had been debunked.

I never said that science had determined how the first life came to be. There are ideas, but nothing known for sure. You seem to think that if science can't explain it, then your first cause argument is the best answer. That is not the case. A lack of a scientific explanation does not automatically mean that the religious explanation is correct.

 

[Peter J Barban]

No you didn't. I was specifically referring to the first cause argument and argument from incredulity when I said they had been debunked.

You cited the first cause argument in post 297 when you claimed that life must have had something to get it started. This is the first cause argument (because you are saying that there must have been something to get it all started), and it is also the argument from incredulity (because you were essentially saying, "I can't imagine how life could have started unless something set it off, so that must have been it!"). I specifically said you were using these two arguments in my reply, which was post 328. I stated that these arguments were old and thoroughly refuted.

In your next post, you said that you were unaware that these had been refuted. So I gave examples of how the first cause argument (which I was referring to when I said it had been refuted) had been debunked.

I never said that science had determined how the first life came to be. There are ideas, but nothing known for sure. You seem to think that if science can't explain it, then your first cause argument is the best answer. That is not the case. A lack of a scientific explanation does not automatically mean that the religious explanation is correct.

I am not making a first cause argument - that is philosophy. I am asking for evidence, that is science. My point stands that evolution has no evidence of life rising from nonlife, either as a first cause in some ancient past or in recorded history.

You know, if we did find this evidence, people would say, "See, this proves evolution is true". So, I have no sympathy for those who avoid admitting this lack of evidence.

ps. You keep using the word "refute" incorrectly, which confused me at first. You really should say that my point is "irrelevant". I am asking for data, you have supplied more theory. Theory, absent evidence, proves nothing and refutes nothing.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not making a first cause argument - that is philosophy. I am asking for evidence, that is science. My point stands that evolution has no evidence of life rising from nonlife, either as a first cause in some ancient past or in recorded history.

You know, if we did find this evidence, people would say, "See, this proves evolution is true". So, I have no sympathy for those who avoid admitting this lack of evidence.

ps. You keep using the word "refute" incorrectly, which confused me at first. You really should say that my point is "irrelevant". I am asking for data, you have supplied more theory. Theory, absent evidence, proves nothing and refutes nothing.

....

Why do you keep asking about abiogenisis which is irrelevant to the ToE?

 

[Kylie]

I am not making a first cause argument - that is philosophy. I am asking for evidence, that is science. My point stands that evolution has no evidence of life rising from nonlife, either as a first cause in some ancient past or in recorded history.

You know, if we did find this evidence, people would say, "See, this proves evolution is true". So, I have no sympathy for those who avoid admitting this lack of evidence.

As has been told to you many times now, evolution does not deal with how life started, only how life changes.

ps. You keep using the word "refute" incorrectly, which confused me at first. You really should say that my point is "irrelevant". I am asking for data, you have supplied more theory. Theory, absent evidence, proves nothing and refutes nothing.

Refute means to show that a particular argument is wrong. When it comes to the First Cause argument, it has been refuted. The fact that it was irrelevant to your intended discussion about abiogenesis does not change the fact that the First Cause argument has been refuted.

 

[Peter J Barban]

According to Wikipedia on the Evolutionary history of life:
"The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years (Ga) ago and evidence suggests life emerged prior to 3.7 Ga."

Based on this, I'd say evolution does deal with the emergence of life. So my point is relevant. And while there is a theory, there is no direct evidence.

 

[Sanoy]

But either way, we work as though it is the case.

Now, would you care to quibble over this some more?

That is correct Kylie, we are both behaving toward a world we believe is real, one of us has a reason to behave that way, and the other does not. I would like to offer you a reasonable way to go about your life, one where you can live and act consistently.

 

[Jimmy D]

You know, if we did find this evidence, people would say, "See, this proves evolution is true". So, I have no sympathy for those who avoid admitting this lack of evidence.

No they wouldn't, common descent is already accepted as fact (aside from the vocal objections of the creationist due to a particular interpretation of the bible).

If you have time have a read through this article, it explains in a bit more depth why your posts on the topic of abiogenesis have been met with scorn.

At the Frontiers of Evolution: Abiogenesis and Christian Apologetics - Articles