What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[pitabread]

Just compare with your common sense and decide which thing is better/greatest/more capable. its not hard i guess.

Appealing to common sense is an appeal to emotion. I find that people usually resort to that when they don't otherwise have a rational claim or argument. It indicates they haven't really thought about what they are claiming.

 

[pitabread]

Well make a scale with every value of what humans can do and make the same for everything humans created or i don't know...

Then do it. If you think that humans are "greater" in aggregate than their creations, come up with some criteria and corresponding metrics. Put it to the test.

I would say human creations are less than the animals, yet humans are greater than animals by a lot.

Based on what? Without specific criteria and measurements these claims are meaningless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You know man invented a camera only 100 years ago or something like that, after thousands of years of advancement in science and study and effort etc, and evolution now without any science or intelligence at alll invented brains? the creation is always less than the creator i don't believe random change and death is more intelligent than ourselves. do you?

Argument from incredulity is fallacious - and a form of argument from ignorance.

But consider the ways of the ant or the termite - they can build, maintain, and repair buttressed castles the (relative) size of skyscrapers, with built in air-conditioning, temperature control, galleries, living quarters, brood chambers, and vast basement fungus gardens where they grow food for the community - and all with the brain of... an ant or termite. Are such architectural marvels less than the ant or termite itself? How intelligent is an ant? - they don't have the brain capacity to understand what they build or why, nevertheless they can build these structures...

How is it that computer programs emulating evolutionary processes via random variation can generate products that are quite different from, and work better than, any a human designer can achieve?

e.g. NASA Evolved Antenna

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its just random change and death, now please let some smart person build an AI capable of building even the most basic thing with that kind of process... and don't tell me that exists because it doesn't the programs that exist choose from already built solutions and input.

They start from simple examples because it's quicker than starting from scratch - they don't have 3 billion years to wait, they want a product in a few days. Those programs do the job - producing better performing results by simulating, as you say, random change and death.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... i really don't believe it can build anything.

Fortunately, your belief is not required.

 

[NBB]

You are hilarious.

I'm serious, having God in your life is not about believing in something only, and this is a normal thing every christian say, its not a philosophy, is God intervining in your life mr atheist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Humans can't make something as great as themselves ("meaning, more sophisticated, capabable of more or the same, as 'great' as a thing as them) even with tools intelligence and study and great effort, evolution has none of all that, and it did better? i don't think so.

Evolution isn't an entity, it's just a natural process; other natural processes can produce complexity and order out of disorder without intelligence - crystallisation produces snowflakes, a variety of interacting processes produce tornadoes, gravity and nuclear forces produce stars, etc. Life happens to be a particularly complex phenomenon, but its underlying principle is the same as that of fire.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well make a scale with every value of what humans can do and make the same for everything humans created or i don't know... just think and you will find humans can do what they creations not, they are more capable always than their creation, the same for everything.

I would say human creations are less than the animals, yet humans are greater than animals by a lot. That would put things in perpective.

THere are two thoughts running through your post that I will address:

1. I can make tools or devices that can do things that I cannot or can do them better than I.

2. There is not "general scale" of value that we can rank things on. A shovel is a poor tool for sewing and a needle is a poor tool for digging. Which is better or more valuable?

 

[NBB]

Then do it. If you think that humans are "greater" in aggregate than their creations, come up with some criteria and corresponding metrics. Put it to the test.



Based on what? Without specific criteria and measurements these claims are meaningless.

You are serious just look at what persons can do and compare, there is no known equal in all the universe. You don't need metrics to do that. When something relatively 'smart' is built, you need something smarter to have created it. And the creation cannot be more than the creator because its just impossible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm serious, having God in your life is not about believing in something only, and this is a normal thing every christian say, its not a philosophy, is God intervining in your life mr atheist.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You have to go to Mass, and prey, etc., etc., etc. If this god intervened in my life I'd tell it to "knock it off".

 

[pitabread]

You are serious just look at what persons can do and compare, there is no known equal in all the universe.

Equal to what exactly? What are we specifically talking about?

For example, have you ever heard of tardigrades? They are small organisms that can survive conditions that would kill a human, including extreme pressure, heat and radiation. They can go without food and water for decades, and even survive in outer space.

For sheer survivability, tardigrades have us completely beat.

When something relatively 'smart' is built, you need something smarter to have created it.

Not necessarily. Look at AI algorithms. There are AIs that can beat ordinary humans at a variety of tasks.

And the creation cannot be more than the creator because its just impossible.

It's not impossible. Again, read up on the concept of emergent properties.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As a whole i mean intelligence and consciouness etc included, you think your car or computer is better than a human? i am not talking about instrinsic 'human value' but as a thing as a whole. Those things are a lot less in terms of being capable of things and sophistication and design etc. Sure a rock is better than a human in not getting hurt when hit, are rocks better...

You may have missed the last 50 years of technology - when a computer beat the world chess champion, or when IBM's Watson beat the world Jeopardy champion, or when Alpha Go beat the world Go champion, etc. - all games thought at the time to represent the uniquely unassailable intelligence and creativity of humans. We have systems that can outperform expert diagnosticians in diagnosing a range of diseases, systems that can translate multiple languages in real-time, and so-on.

Naturally, there are many things such machines can't do, but don't tell me we can't create machines that can outperform us in brainpower.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The science of evolution is a misnomer. It is more a religion based on religious beliefs of atheism.

JFYI - It's against forum rules to call science a religion, and atheism is a lack of religious beliefs.

 

[NBB]

A computer is not better or greater than a human and will never be, the same as that bug you were takling about. Can a computer create something like humans do by itself? a bit advanced this human stuff eh?
can this bug even think? no.
So yes humans are better greater and capable of doing more than those things. Lets see a computer building things designing them without human input, or a bug building a civilization!? so don't talk non sense please.
Learn to compare the value of things if you think that way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are serious just look at what persons can do and compare, there is no known equal in all the universe. You don't need metrics to do that. When something relatively 'smart' is built, you need something smarter to have created it. And the creation cannot be more than the creator because its just impossible.

Rubbish.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Puhleeze. The science of evolution is a misnomer. It is more a religion based on religious beliefs of atheism.

You cannot help but lie, can you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

or a bug building a civilization!?

Some insects do have civilizations.

You seem to have drifted far from the topic of this thread (and in some cases this board). Got anything on falsification and evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A computer is not better or greater than a human and will never be, the same as that bug you were takling about. Can a computer create something like humans do by itself? a bit advanced this human stuff eh?
can this bug even think? no.
So yes humans are better greater and capable of doing more than those things. Lets see a computer building things designing them without human input, or a bug building a civilization!? so don't talk non sense please.

Sure, you can keep moving the goalposts of what it means to be "better or greater than a human" (although it helps if you properly define those goalposts first) so that you eventually end up with things that are uniquely human by definition - but you can do that for any creature; it would be a form of the "No true Scotsman fallacy" a literal reductio-ad-absurdum, and the process would demonstrate that the human exceptionalism you espouse is a uniquely human bias.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, you can keep moving the goalposts of what it means to be "better or greater than a human" (although it helps if you properly define those goalposts first) so that you eventually end up with things that are uniquely human by definition - but you can do that for any creature; it would be a form of the "No true Scotsman fallacy" a literal reductio-ad-absurdum, and the process would demonstrate that the human exceptionalism you espouse is a uniquely human bias.

A move beyond common sense or human intuition would seem to be in order. Maybe we could build a system for testing ideas and judging the results free of prior biases. Perhaps it could be repeatable and have a mechanism to show that certain ideas are poor. What should we call that...

 

[Ophiolite]

A computer is not better or greater than a human and will never be, the same as that bug you were takling about. Can a computer create something like humans do? a bit advanced this human stuff eh?
can this bug even think? no.
So yes humans are better greater and capable of doing more than those things. Lets see a computer building things designing them without human input, or a bug building a civilization!? so don't talk non sense please.

You keep making empty assertions that have been refuted multiple times within the thread.

Partly this is because you cannot even be bothered to listen to what other members have been saying. Despite repeated requests you have failed to define what you mean by "better". The last few pages of "discussion" could have been avoided if you had posted something like this:

"Of course I agree that in terms of specific capabilites machines can outperform humans, but those machines were conceived, designed and built by humans. Moreover, in terms of human compassion, empathy, artisitic creativity and the like no machine can match these and that is what I mean when I say no machine is better than a human."