Falsifiability

[VirOptimus]

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.

No, your quotation doesnt even support your claim.

Just accept that you are wrong and move on, its stupid to double down on an error.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

No direct evidence of what, abiogenesis or evolution?

 

[Peter J Barban]

Here is another passage from Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

"Research on how life might have emerged from non-living chemicals focuses on three possible starting points: self-replication, an organism's ability to produce offspring that are very similar to itself; metabolism, its ability to feed and repair itself; and external cell membranes, which allow food to enter and waste products to leave, but exclude unwanted substances.[69] Research on abiogenesis still has a long way to go, since theoretical and empirical approaches are only beginning to make contact with each other.[70][71]"

 

[Peter J Barban]

No direct evidence of what, abiogenesis or evolution?

No direct evidence of abiogenesis, which is a key component of evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

Here is another passage from Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

"Research on how life might have emerged from non-living chemicals focuses on three possible starting points: self-replication, an organism's ability to produce offspring that are very similar to itself; metabolism, its ability to feed and repair itself; and external cell membranes, which allow food to enter and waste products to leave, but exclude unwanted substances.[69] Research on abiogenesis still has a long way to go, since theoretical and empirical approaches are only beginning to make contact with each other.[70][71]"

Yes, and?

 

[VirOptimus]

No direct evidence of abiogenesis, which is a key component of evolution.

Eh, no it isnt, even if you could support that life started in some supernatural way and some god(s) created life it wouldnt affect the ToE in the slightest.

The ToE is only about life changing and adapting, it explains the diversity of life.

You should really really study a biology 101.

 

[Jimmy D]

No direct evidence of abiogenesis, which is a key component of evolution.

Did you bother reading that article I posted?

 

[Jimmy D]

No direct evidence of abiogenesis, which is a key component of evolution.

The fact that we don't know how life started (natural chemical processes, divine intervention etc) does not mean that we can disregard the evidence for common descent and the fact that evolution occurs.

 

[Peter J Barban]

The fact that we don't know how life started (natural chemical processes, divine intervention etc) does not mean that we can disregard the evidence for common descent and the fact that evolution occurs.

I can accept that there is evidence of a common ancestor. That fact is not unique to or necessary for evolution. I mean that abiogenesis could have occurred multiple times, leading to unique ancestors and that result would be fine in evolutionary theory.

However, evolution has not been observed occurring, only described as having occurred. My point is that people use faith to connect fact A to fact B (for example apes evolving into men) because we never see the connection in real time. Apes are a fact. Men are a fact. Apes may possibly become men, but we have never observed it. Confidence without seeing is called faith.

 

[VirOptimus]

I can accept that there is evidence of a common ancestor. That fact is not unique to or necessary for evolution. I mean that abiogenesis could have occurred multiple times, leading to unique ancestors and that result would be fine in evolutionary theory.

However, evolution has not been observed occurring, only described as having occurred. My point is that people use faith to connect fact A to fact B (for example apes evolving into men) because we never see the connection in real time. Apes are a fact. Men are a fact. Apes may possibly become men, but we have never observed it. Confidence without seeing is called faith.

This is so funny.

Men are apes by definition.

 

[Jimmy D]

I can accept that there is evidence of a common ancestor. That fact is not unique to or necessary for evolution. I mean that abiogenesis could have occurred multiple times, leading to unique ancestors and that result would be fine in evolutionary theory.

Is there any evidence of this?

However, evolution has not been observed occurring, only described as having occurred.

Nonsense.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Observed Instances of Speciation

Evolution in real time

My point is that people use faith to connect fact A to fact B (for example apes evolving into men) because we never see the connection in real time. Apes are a fact. Men are a fact. Apes may possibly become men, but we have never observed it. Confidence without seeing is called faith.

Why are you are discounting the fossil record, genetic evidence, etc?

https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-genetic-evidence-for-human-evolution/

 

[Speedwell]

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.

I don't have to "gain major integrity points" from the likes of you. I'm calling you on your insinuation that a naturalistic abiogenesis (if such can be shown to have occurred) would rule out divine authorship of life.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Is there any evidence of this?



Nonsense.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

Observed Instances of Speciation

Evolution in real time



Why are you are discounting the fossil record, genetic evidence, etc?

What is the genetic evidence for human evolution? - Common-questions

1. The only evidence if multiple abiogeneses are in science fiction. I just wanted to mention that evolutionary theory allows for this. It's not an important point until it happens.

2. I guess I am discounting the fossil record. I accept the fossils as facts, but I look at the assumption that they support evolution skeptically. Maybe they do. But we knew about fossils long before we thought of evolution. You don't need evolution to explain fossils.

3. I will check out your links on speciation, they sound interesting. One of my concerns is the difference between variation within species (which is not evolution) and true evolution from one species into another.

 

[Ophiolite]

I can accept that there is evidence of a common ancestor. That fact is not unique to or necessary for evolution. I mean that abiogenesis could have occurred multiple times, leading to unique ancestors and that result would be fine in evolutionary theory.

However, evolution has not been observed occurring, only described as having occurred. My point is that people use faith to connect fact A to fact B (for example apes evolving into men) because we never see the connection in real time. Apes are a fact. Men are a fact. Apes may possibly become men, but we have never observed it. Confidence without seeing is called faith.

Two distinct points follow:

1. If abiogenesis had occurred multiple times we would likely see fundamental differences in DNA, or in the amino acids used in proteins. We don't. This doesn't preclude the possibility of multiple origins, it just makes it less probable.

2. Evolution has not been described as having occurred. It is inferred to have occured based upon observations in comparative anatomy, palaeontology, genetics, biogeography, botany, zoology, microbiology and the like. It has also been observed in the laboratory and is seen in progress in the willd.

Faith is not used to connect A and B. Rigorous logic, detailed observation, hypothesis formation and testing, rejection of concepts contradicted by evidence and so forth, are used to A and B. Faith is as far removed from this process as an Amish homestead is from the Playboy Mansion.

It has already been noted that men are apes, but I'll play your game. If today's non-human apes were to become men that would pretty well disprove a vast proportion, if not all, of evolutionary theory.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I don't have to "gain major integrity points" from the likes of you. I'm calling you on your insinuation that a naturalistic abiogenesis (if such can be shown to have occurred) would rule out divine authorship of life.

Other than trying to insult me, I don't get your point about ruling out divine authorship. I am not discussing divine authorship, I am skeptically examining evolution, and it seems that causes confusion to true believers in evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

. I am arguing that there is no objective evidence that life arose spontaneously - which is a key component of evolution.

Abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution. VirOptimus has already pointed this out to you, but your assertion that it is irrelevant is such a fanciful, foolish, egregious error that you need to be corrected on it until you acknowledge the error.

(A side benefit would be the major integrity points you would acquire. )

Before we get down to the evidence for evolution we have to remove that silly obstacle to informed discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

Other than trying to insult me, I don't get your point about ruling out divine authorship. I am not discussing divine authorship, I am skeptically examining evolution, and it seems that causes confusion to true believers in evolution.

Go back to your point 1:

"1. The fundamental notion that life arose independently of a creator."

This is not a fundamental notion of the theory of evolution or of any abiogenesis hypothesis. No abiogenesis hypothesis makes any reference to a creator, one way or the other. Certainly there is no claim that abiogenesis came about "independently of a creator."

 

[Peter J Barban]

Two distinct points follow:

1. If abiogenesis had occurred multiple times we would likely see fundamental differences in DNA, or in the amino acids used in proteins. We don't. This doesn't preclude the possibility of multiple origins, it just makes it less probable.

2. Evolution has not been described as having occurred. It is inferred to have occured based upon observations in comparative anatomy, palaeontology, genetics, biogeography, botany, zoology, microbiology and the like. It has also been observed in the laboratory and is seen in progress in the willd.

Faith is not used to connect A and B. Rigorous logic, detailed observation, hypothesis formation and testing, rejection of concepts contradicted by evidence and so forth, are used to A and B. Faith is as far removed from this process as an Amish homestead is from the Playboy Mansion.

It has already been noted that men are apes, but I'll play your game. If today's non-human apes were to become men that would pretty well disprove a vast proportion, if not all, of evolutionary theory.

1. I agree.
2. I like your word "inferred" better than my word "described".
But of course, inferred is not "seen."

Evolution is a lab sounds interesting, but that would not actually fit the theory of natural evolution- actually it's a bit more like creation.

If we see evolution in the wild, how do we measure it? I have never seen a valid way to measure evolution. If we can't agree on units of measurement, then we can't really call this science. Maybe we should call it "The Sublime Art of Evolution- I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

 

[Peter J Barban]

Go back to your point 1:

"1. The fundamental notion that life arose independently of a creator."

This is not a fundamental notion of the theory of evolution or of any abiogenesis hypothesis. No abiogenesis hypothesis makes any reference to a creator, one way or the other. Certainly there is no claim that abiogenesis came about "independently of a creator."

Are saying that the work of a creator (creation) can qualify as abiogenesis? I consider this a violation of terms.

My word choice was to rule out human-created life in a lab being considered abiogenesis because living beings are doing the creating of life, so by definition life creating life isn't true abiogenesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Are saying that the work of a creator (creation) can qualify as abiogenesis?

No, I am saying that abiogenesis can qualify as the work of a creator.

I consider this a violation of terms.

If you are sincere in this then I apologize. Most often when creationists make statements of the "God or evolution" kind they are blatant sophistry.

My word choice was to rule out human-created life in a lab being considered abiogenesis because living beings are doing the creating of life, so by definition life creating life isn't true abiogenesis.

What would happen in a lab is that conditions would be established which would allow life to form more or less as it would in nature. It would be no more possible to rule out God's involvement in such an event as it would be to rule it out if the event had occurred in nature.