Falsifiability

[Jimmy D]

"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.

See that?

 

[Peter J Barban]

See that?

Read the second paragraph or go to the source. Abiogenesis is a major topic in evolutionary biology. But it has never been observed. So, it is a faith-based theory.

 

[Jimmy D]

As I have quoted before from Wikipedia, life from non-life is a major tenet of evolutionary theory. Should I trust you are Wikipedia?

"The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organismsevolved, 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....
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."

Any evolutionists with integrity willing to admit that evolutionary theory includes abiogenesis? Is there even 1 on this thread?

I realize that you think that our lack of understanding of how life started is some sort of "gotcha" against evolution, but it really isn't....

From the article I directed you to which you obviously didn't bother reading.....


"One challenge that faces us when examining frontier areas of evolution is that many Christians have had exposure to such topics exclusively in the context of antievolutionary apologetics. In such cases, it is common for the arguments to have the following basic structure: discuss a genuine scientific controversy from a frontier area of evolution, and then inappropriately use it in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution as a whole. This approach, though sadly common, misses the mark for two reasons: it fails to appreciate that a field of science is expected to have areas that are well supported as well as areas that are more speculative; and that in speculative areas, the presence of competing hypotheses does not imply that the more theoretical base that allows the hypotheses to be made in the first place is somehow suspect.

Nowhere in Christian antievolutionary apologetics is this approach more prominent than for the first frontier area of evolution that we will examine: abiogenesis, or the proposed transition between nonliving matter and the first life on earth. Strictly speaking, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, in that evolution is the theory of how life changes over time, not how life may have arisen from non-life. As we will see, however, there is good evidence that this distinction is yet another attempt to draw a line on what is in fact a gradient between “non-living” and “living”. Regardless of these careful distinctions that a scientist might make, however, in the popular Christian antievolutionary literature the mystery of abiogenesis is reason enough to doubt evolution as a whole. Hopefully, the scientific problem with this approach is by now obvious – unsolved problems at the frontier are expected, and the natural result of a productive theory. Of course, there is also an apologetics problem with this approach: should a hypothesis at the frontier find experimental support, it will shift towards the theoretical core over time. If an apologetics argument is based on the expectation that such a hypothesis is false, then that argument will lose even what meager force it may have once had, to the detriment of the apologetic it was designed to support. Bonhoeffer famously rejected this approach, and we would do well to follow suit."

Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley


............................................

Your insistence on focusing on this preceived "flaw" whilst completely ignoring conclusive evidence from over a century's worth of rigorous scientific testing is telling.

At least be honest that actual empirical evidence means nothing to you.

 

[Ophiolite]

Read the second paragraph or go to the source. Abiogenesis is a major topic in evolutionary biology. But it has never been observed. So, it is a faith-based theory.

Oh, really! Of course biologists extend their interests towards what initiated life. It is wholly natural that they should do so. However, that interest is independent of evolution. Biologists who study the metabolism of plankton may also take an interest in oceanography. That does not mean that oceanography is an integral part of the biology of metabolic processes. Surely you can see that?

You claim it is a faith based theory. First off, it isn't a theory. We haven't advanced far enough in our investigation to accord it such an honour. There are several hypotheses that have been explored to a greater or lesser extent, but the jury is still hearing the evidence.

Faith based? Don't be silly! We have have over two hundred organic molecules already detected in interstellar space, within Giant Molecular Clouds (GMCs), the same clouds that collapse to produce planetary systems like ours. We have found various organic molecules, including amino acids, in meteorites that accreted to form the planets. We have the explusion of rich chemical stews from sub-sea volcanic vents. So we have the existence of the "primeval soup" all but proven. Where's the faith there? Then we have a multiplicity of logical, consistent routes by which both metabolisms and self replicating organisms could arise. No faith involved there.

Frankly, your suggestion that abiogenesis theory (sic) is faith based is an insult to faith.

 

[Peter J Barban]

It's amazing the logic games evolutionists play to avoid both Wikipedia entries and common knowledge.
1. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of abiogenesis. That is a fact, that I have shown.
2. Abiogenesis has not been observed. Yet, people believe it happened.
3. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of a common ancestor.
4. The common ancestor has not been observed/discovered. Yet, people believe there was one.
Embrace your faith!

 

[Speedwell]

A common ancestor is one possibility, so is a common creator.

Or both, a possibility admitted to by even atheists in this discussion, but which you deny for rhetorical purposes.

I understand the difference between observation and conclusion. My point is always the same; evolution is a belief. The distinctive tenets of evolution such as abiogenesis and common ancestor have not been observed anywhere, at any time, by anyone. Yet it is believed. That's OK, believe if you want. And as a belief, it is nearly unfalsifiable.

Given what we know about how evolution works now and evidence of how it worked in the past, common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the data. At the present time it is the only reasonable inference.

Likewise, Atheism is the mirror image of Theism. Both are believers.

This discussion is about the theory of evolution and abiogenesis, not about theism v. atheism.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's amazing the logic games evolutionists play to avoid both Wikipedia entries and common knowledge.
1. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of abiogenesis. That is a fact, that I have shown.
2. Abiogenesis has not been observed. Yet, people believe it happened.
3. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of a common ancestor.
4. The common ancestor has not been observed/discovered. Yet, people believe there was one.
Embrace your faith!

Thank you for your reponse. It doesn't really merit any reply, for I recognise intrasigent self delusion as being far beyond my ability to deal with. You may cherry pick and play semantics to your heart's content, meanwhile the world will roll on and the biosphere will keep evolving. I regret the same will not be possible for your understanding.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I realize that you think that our lack of understanding of how life started is some sort of "gotcha" against evolution, but it really isn't....

From the article I directed you to which you obviously didn't bother reading.....


"One challenge that faces us when examining frontier areas of evolution is that many Christians have had exposure to such topics exclusively in the context of antievolutionary apologetics. In such cases, it is common for the arguments to have the following basic structure: discuss a genuine scientific controversy from a frontier area of evolution, and then inappropriately use it in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution as a whole. This approach, though sadly common, misses the mark for two reasons: it fails to appreciate that a field of science is expected to have areas that are well supported as well as areas that are more speculative; and that in speculative areas, the presence of competing hypotheses does not imply that the more theoretical base that allows the hypotheses to be made in the first place is somehow suspect.

Nowhere in Christian antievolutionary apologetics is this approach more prominent than for the first frontier area of evolution that we will examine: abiogenesis, or the proposed transition between nonliving matter and the first life on earth. Strictly speaking, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, in that evolution is the theory of how life changes over time, not how life may have arisen from non-life. As we will see, however, there is good evidence that this distinction is yet another attempt to draw a line on what is in fact a gradient between “non-living” and “living”. Regardless of these careful distinctions that a scientist might make, however, in the popular Christian antievolutionary literature the mystery of abiogenesis is reason enough to doubt evolution as a whole. Hopefully, the scientific problem with this approach is by now obvious – unsolved problems at the frontier are expected, and the natural result of a productive theory. Of course, there is also an apologetics problem with this approach: should a hypothesis at the frontier find experimental support, it will shift towards the theoretical core over time. If an apologetics argument is based on the expectation that such a hypothesis is false, then that argument will lose even what meager force it may have once had, to the detriment of the apologetic it was designed to support. Bonhoeffer famously rejected this approach, and we would do well to follow suit."

Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley


............................................

Your insistence on focusing on this preceived "flaw" whilst completely ignoring conclusive evidence from over a century's worth of rigorous scientific testing is telling.

At least be honest that actual empirical evidence means nothing to you.

I am not attacking evolution at all. I don't believe in evolution, but I am not trying to refute it. I am just asking you to admit that you believe it.
You believe in abiogenesis and a common ancestor.
Is that so hard for you?

 

[Jimmy D]

1. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of abiogenesis.

True enough, but not what you previously claimed... "Life from non-life is a major tenet of evolutionary theory"

2. Abiogenesis has not been observed. Yet, people believe it happened.

No one is denying that.

3. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of a common ancestor.

Obviously

4. The common ancestor has not been observed/discovered. Yet, people believe there was one.

It is inferred, from the abundant evidence available.

 

[Speedwell]

It's amazing the logic games evolutionists play to avoid both Wikipedia entries and common knowledge.
1. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of abiogenesis. That is a fact, that I have shown.

You may turn out to be right after all. I gather that some scientists have hypothesized that semi-living organisms were capable of replication with variation (and thus capable of evolving) before developing to the point that they possessed the full suite of characteristics which we say define "life." Something like modern viruses, perhaps.

2. Abiogenesis has not been observed. Yet, people believe it happened.

There was once a time at which no life existed on the Earth. Now life does exist on Earth. QED.

3. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of a common ancestor.

True

4. The common ancestor has not been observed/discovered. Yet, people believe there was one.

Given what we know about how evolution works now and evidence of how it worked in the past, common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the data. At the present time it is the only reasonable inference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the second paragraph or go to the source. Abiogenesis is a major topic in evolutionary biology. But it has never been observed. So, it is a faith-based theory.

This is incorrect. First abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. And aspects of it are testable. There is reliable evidence for it, but not enough evidence to lift it to the state of being a theory since there are still serious unanswered questions. Also we know that there was an abiogenesis event in Earth's history since we can observe when there was no evidence of life in early rocks and later evidence for life. We simply do not fully understand the cause of that event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not attacking evolution at all. I don't believe in evolution, but I am not trying to refute it. I am just asking you to admit that you believe it.
You believe in abiogenesis and a common ancestor.
Is that so hard for you?

Since there is massive evidence for evolution "belief" is not needed. One does not need to believe that one will fall if he steps off of a cliff. There is massive evidence that that will happen. Meanwhile reliable objective evidence does not appear to exist for faith based beliefs. That is why religious beliefs are a "belief". Accepting the sciences is merely accepting reality.

 

[Jimmy D]

I am not attacking evolution at all. I don't believe in evolution, but I am not trying to refute it.

You can't refute it. Evolution happens, simple as that.

I am just asking you to admit that you believe it.

Of course I accept it, anyone who looks at the evidence objectively would.

(Obviously I realize this part is a sorry attempt to try and equate acceptance of the TOE with religious faith)

You believe in abiogenesis and a common ancestor.

Abiogenesis seems to be the most likely explanation for the origin of life. It's a hypothesis that's being explored.

We do know that naturally occurring chemical processes can give rise to organic compounds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's amazing the logic games evolutionists play to avoid both Wikipedia entries and common knowledge.
1. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of abiogenesis. That is a fact, that I have shown.

Yes, it is the most likely answer to how life started. It is supported by evidence but there remain unanswered questions.

2. Abiogenesis has not been observed. Yet, people believe it happened.

Now you are using an equivocation fallacy. The "belief" in abiogenesis is not the same as your religious beliefs. Using a word that has multiple definitions and applying different definitions and then trying to say that they are the same is not proper.

3. The evolutionary history of life includes discussion of a common ancestor.

And there is very strong evidence for that. So not the same sort of "belief" as your religious beliefs. The idea can be tested and if wrong can be refuted. How would you reasonably and properly test your religious beliefs? What reasonable test would show them to be wrong? If you can't answer this properly, and no one has, then you could claim the two were the same sort of belief.

4. The common ancestor has not been observed/discovered. Yet, people believe there was one.
Embrace your faith!

Not a faith. We do not have your weakness. Why is it so important to you to improperly classify scientific observations and conclusions the same way that you classify your religious beliefs? This appears to be a defense mechanism for a weak faith. What you should realize is that Christianity can survive even though evolution is a fact. You do not need to read Genesis literally. In fact if you insist on reading Genesis literally then the only ultimate conclusion would be that your faith is wrong since a literal interpretation can be demonstrated to be wrong.

 

[pitabread]

Read the second paragraph or go to the source. Abiogenesis is a major topic in evolutionary biology. But it has never been observed. So, it is a faith-based theory.

*sigh*

 

[pitabread]

I understand the difference between observation and conclusion. My point is always the same; evolution is a belief.

Didn't we just start discussing the fact that the theory of evolution has practical application? People who claim evolution is just a "belief" are directly contradicted by the fact that it's an applied science.

 

[Belk]

Read the second paragraph or go to the source. Abiogenesis is a major topic in evolutionary biology. But it has never been observed. So, it is a faith-based theory.

 

[xianghua]

Nope

but this is what you said here: "Ten million years is not much in the evolutionary time scale"

so if we can push back human by 10 my why we cant push it by 30?

 

[TBDude65]

I asked you if physics and chemistry describe reality and you said no. If you have a way please let me know.

Physics and chemistry describe reality. In what other way do you need me to reaffirm that this is my position?

 

[Sanoy]

Physics and chemistry describe reality. In what other way do you need me to reaffirm that this is my position?

That is contrary to what you answered earlier.