What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Speedwell]

That would be a tough one. You would have to put your back into it.

(Groan.)

 

[driewerf]

With all due respect to the scientists, if something is true and factual, it cannot be falsified!

TOE in the Darwinian sense (from microbes to man over c. 1 billion years) is untestable unobservable, and unrepeatable.

Hey, nobody noted this: Nolidad declared the theory of evolution true!

 

[nolidad]

What is this sentence even trying to say?

Mutations are supposedly the result of natural selection and environment and mutations are what is supposed to bring microbes to man.

But given that over 99.9% of mutations fall on the harmful side of the scale (almost completely benign to toxic) mutations do not advance evolution on the macro scale as the hypotheses state they do.

 

[pitabread]

Mutations are supposedly the result of natural selection and environment

No, that's not what mutations are at all.

But given that over 99.9% of mutations fall on the harmful side of the scale (almost completely benign to toxic) mutations do not advance evolution on the macro scale as the hypotheses state they do.

This is also completely incorrect.

My takeaway from this is that you don't know what mutations are (per the science of biology), which explains why that original sentence I quoted made no sense.

 

[nolidad]

Could it be this? "Mutations have to be random, unplanned (no end goal), yet at the same time they must advance macro evolution."

If so, it should be accompanied with a note on the sub text, which I suggest might be this: "I don't properly understand the role of mutations in evolution and I am deeply confused over the nature and relevance of macro evolution."

Perhaps, if @nolidad returns from his sabbatical, he can clarify both his message and his sub-text.

Well my one day sabbastical is over. Mutations have never been shown to alter a creature so that fins became limbs, arms became wings , three chambered hearts become four chambered hearts etc.etc.etc. etc. over the course of X eons of time.

Just think of a dino becoming a bird. There forelimbs become useless for grasping, fighting and clawing, they have to go from cold to warm blooded at some point. Jaws have to change.

Also scales have to trun to feathers and a PHD in genetics writing here could only come to try to prove that with a crocoduck! Where they took a fully genetically complete feather gene from a chicken and implanted it into a croc and got a flayed scute that was neither scale nor feather! Wouldn't do much good for the poor creature that had to live with those for eons nor the population that was less protected (as croc scales do a good job of).

 

[Ophiolite]

Mutations are supposedly the result of natural selection and environment and mutations are what is supposed to bring microbes to man.

@pitabread has already pointed out that this is nonsense. Mutations arise primarily from errors during the replication of DNA. Natural selection acts upon any resultant changes in the phenotype arising from those mutations. It does not cause them. In a very small number of cases chemicals or radiation in the environment may induce mutations. That is the extent of the very limited involvement of the environment in generating mutations.
Please note that it is only mutations in the germ cells (ova and sperm) that impact on evolution. Mutations in the somatic (general body) cells impact the individual, but not evolution.

But given that over 99.9% of mutations fall on the harmful side of the scale (almost completely benign to toxic) mutations do not advance evolution on the macro scale as the hypotheses state they do.

Please respond to @Gene2memE 's post #478. It implicitly addresses the egregious errors exposed in your thinking here.

 

[nolidad]

It's both testable and observable, although the observation is second hand only (fossils and DNA evidence, for instance).

Here's a test - find me a vertebrate that's a billion years old.

find me the empirical data that has been tested repeated and observed that anything is a billion years old.

All radiometric dating systems have been shown to be empirically very flawed as chronometers.

This is a false dichotomy.

Well empirical science is established by the scientific method. Evolution hasn't met that. we have not tests that show mutations took microbes to man!

We have fossils. but in reality all fossils show is that some creature with that bone structure or feather pattern or skin lived at some point in the past.

We have 17 species of T-REx. is that because they found 17 different kinds of T-REx? NO! It is because they named a species after its discoverer so that we have 17 different names for a T-REx.

They can postulate that slow bit by bit mutations caused the changes they think may have happened over eons of time, but they have failed to demonstrate that ! Not even once.

No one has ever seen Pluto complete an orbit of the sun. Does that mean it doesn't?

Red Herring

But, they're not always harmful. The vast majority of them are neutral. Those are typically discarded, as they have a negative impact on fitness. But beneficial mutations are conserved, as they have a positive impact on fitness.

Well as the former Chair of Harvard Genetics, all mutations have a net reduction in the viability of a population. And he is an ardent evolutionist.

And the use of mutation in the generic sense is also misleading. Mutations that have caused "microbes to man" have to add previously non-existent information in to the genome! There is genetic shuffling and variation of existing material, but it never produces new information, just variants of existing information. and it always stays the same "kind" A dog with short hair which produces dogs with long hair is almost always proof of Mendels Law and not evolution at work.

Now, extrapolate further. What happens when the "kind" continues to collect beneficial mutations that differentiate it from ancestral populations? And then those subsequent populations continue to collect beneficial mutations?

What is the mechanism that prevents one "kind" from evolving from a parent "kind"?

Well in teh generic sense of evolution which is simply change- everything "evolves" as I am not a carbon copy of my parents but have differences. But is Evolution as in "microbes to man", it has never been validated by teh scientific method. It is accepted by the vast super majority of scientists, but mutations preserved by natural selection creating the "microbes to man " hypotheses has never been shown- just an opinion accepted.

But as for the mechanism? God placing a limit on variation. We can have change that produces much variation! Even evolutionists accept all dogs came from an ancestral Pair. There dates are way off and the mechanism(random unplanned mutations) is unprovable but we agree on the basic premise. they believe in evolution, while I believe that God allowed a greatr fluidity in teh genome of each creature to allow it to flourish and adapt. Sowe see teh great variations within each kind. But the fossil record shows that teh "kinds" remained the kinds.

Nearly all ancestral proofs of evolution (like th whale tree) have been debunked, and by evolutionists no less in most of the trees.

 

[nolidad]

Hey, nobody noted this: Nolidad declared the theory of evolution true!

Well if that is what you think- whatever floats your boat!

 

[nolidad]

No, that's not what mutations are at all.

Don't tell that to some scientists. They say that mutations are a result of environment!

 

[pitabread]

Don't tell that to some scientists. They say that mutations are a result of environment!

Define "mutation". What exactly do you think mutations are?

 

[Ophiolite]

Just think of a dino becoming a bird.

Birds are dinosaurs. What's the problem.

There forelimbs become useless for grasping, fighting and clawing,

Their hind limbs and beaks are excellent for grasping. Clearly you have never owned a parrot.
Their hind limbs and beaks are excellent for fighting. Clearly you have never owned an eagle.
Their hind limbs are excellent for clawing. Clearly you have never stuck your hand in a cage and surprised an ostritch.

they have to go from cold to warm blooded at some point..

Many dinosaurs were warm blooded. Probably the majority of the later ones.

Jaws have to change.

Of course they have to change. That's why we call it evolution!

 

[pitabread]

Red Herring

The Pluto analogy was bang-on.

When it comes to biological evolution, we observe evolutionary processes happening in real time. With respect to the evolution of species over the Earth's history, it's the same process; it's just extrapolated over a longer period of time.

Creationists claiming that evolution cannot explain the diversity of species on Earth is very much akin to claiming that Pluto can't complete an orbit around the Sun. After all, we've never observed the latter in real time.

 

[pitabread]

God placing a limit on variation.

What limit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well my one day sabbastical is over. Mutations have never been shown to alter a creature so that fins became limbs, arms became wings , three chambered hearts become four chambered hearts etc.etc.etc. etc. over the course of X eons of time.

Just think of a dino becoming a bird. There forelimbs become useless for grasping, fighting and clawing, they have to go from cold to warm blooded at some point. Jaws have to change.

Also scales have to trun to feathers and a PHD in genetics writing here could only come to try to prove that with a crocoduck! Where they took a fully genetically complete feather gene from a chicken and implanted it into a croc and got a flayed scute that was neither scale nor feather! Wouldn't do much good for the poor creature that had to live with those for eons nor the population that was less protected (as croc scales do a good job of).

So much wrong here. Many dinosaurs were warm blooded. Feathers evolved long before birds did. And guess what? Some birds still have remnants of the claws that became non-functional. There were quite a few lines of "birds" but most of them went extinct, as most life does.

 

[pitabread]

Their hind limbs and beaks are excellent for grasping. Clearly you have never owned a parrot.
Their hind limbs and beaks are excellent for fighting. Clearly you have never owned an eagle.
Their hind limbs are excellent for clawing. Clearly you have never stuck your hand in a cage and surprised an ostritch.

There is a common theme of unfamiliarity with modern species any time a creationist tries to argue against evolutionary transitions.

 

[Gene2memE]

find me the empirical data that has been tested repeated and observed that anything is a billion years old.

All radiometric dating systems have been shown to be empirically very flawed as chronometers.

No, they haven't.

And, here you go:

A one-billion-year-old multicellular chlorophyte | Nature Ecology & Evolution

Early fungi from the Proterozoic era in Arctic Canada | Nature

Well empirical science is established by the scientific method. Evolution hasn't met that.

Yeah, it has. That you fail to acknowledge this doesn't change that fact.

we have not tests that show mutations took microbes to man!

Don't mix observations with inferential conclusions.

We have fossils. but in reality all fossils show is that some creature with that bone structure or feather pattern or skin lived at some point in the past.

Show me a pre-Cambrian Chordate, or a pre-Triassic flowering plant. Fossils show a definitive nested hierarchy. What's your explanation for that, based on a

We have 17 species of T-REx. is that because they found 17 different kinds of T-REx? NO! It is because they named a species after its discoverer so that we have 17 different names for a T-REx.

Um, I'm really not sure what you're going on about here. We barely have 17 Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils, let alone 17 different described species, or 17 names for the species.

You may be referring to the entire Tyrannosauridae family? In some classification schemes there are up to 17 genra and sub-genra.

Well as the former Chair of Harvard Genetics, all mutations have a net reduction in the viability of a population. And he is an ardent evolutionist.

Going to need a quote, and a citation before I accept that one chief.

But as for the mechanism? God placing a limit on variation. We can have change that produces much variation! Even evolutionists accept all dogs came from an ancestral Pair.

Nope. There's no such thing as an "ancestral pair". You really don't understand how evolution is about populations, not individuals.

The speciation of dogs from wolves occurred over about 20,000 years. It also occurred across multiple regions - Central/Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and Northern/Northeastern Asia.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is a common theme of unfamiliarity with modern species any time a creationist tries to argue against evolutionary transitions.

Here is a speculation: practically all humans are naturally anthropocentric, however this anthropocentrism seems especially intense in some individuals and groups. Creationists seem to me to be one such group. If one is extremely self and species centred it is not surprising that one is largely ignorant of the character of the other inhabitants of the biosphere.

I invite any and all creationists to challenge me on this, hopefully with evidence.

 

[pitabread]

If one is extremely self and species centred it is not surprising that one is largely ignorant of the character of the other inhabitants of the biosphere.

This is especially evident any time a creationists tries to argue that humans are biologically superior to other species. We are so clearly not.

 

[Brightmoon]

We evolved from quadrupeds and walk on our hindlegs. That alone causes enough problems with our backs! Not a superior design at all

 

[NBB]

This is especially evident any time a creationists tries to argue that humans are biologically superior to other species. We are so clearly not.

Our intellect is so superior to animals that there is no comparison though, and That has to come from somewhere, see conciousness and intelligence is not so easy to come by as some try to make it.