What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[nolidad]

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.

So show when they evolved from cold blooded to wamr blooded.

And if feathers came before birds- show the mutations in dinosaurs to turn scales to feathers. When and with whom these changes evolutionists claim happened is unimportant. I want to see teh empirical evidence and teh observed, tested repeated proof that these actually did happen!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't think random change can build a body, and you can't refute random change is what builds, The little change that passes natural selection over the other thousands or millions i don't know of changes that don't, are being built by random change, that this builds brains that are connected to the whole body in a design fashion should not be possible.

Also we have a soul that works with our bodies, so i don't care what evolutionist say, God intended us to be the exactly the way he thought and planned, even if evolution is true in that we came from lesser beings, our very person and what makes us people comes from God himself and this part of our being is closely working with our bodies so its fair to think God planned how our bodies will work too.

It is incorrect to say "random change" without bringing up natural selection. The changes are hardly random since any change is put through that filter. And it hardly matters what you believe. It matters what one can demonstrate with evidence. The evidence is not on the side of creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So show when they evolved from cold blooded to wamr blooded.

And if feathers came before birds- show the mutations in dinosaurs to turn scales to feathers. When and with whom these changes evolutionists claim happened is unimportant. I want to see teh empirical evidence and teh observed, tested repeated proof that these actually did happen!

Why do I need to do that?

Do not make ignorant demands. You can ask how we know things, but you first need to admit your own errors at a minimum.

 

[nolidad]

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

Then show the mutations that caused scales to become feathers then! should be easy if they have proven ti.

No, they haven't.

I take it then you haven't kept up with the empirical data that has shown that the assumptions built into the dating methodology have been shown to be empirically false!

Don't mix observations with inferential conclusions.

Well that is what teh believers of TOE do . So don't the textbooks! they do not even call it inferential anymore. It is a declared fact! Just look at any video by Hawkings, Dawkins, et. Al.

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

systemic destruction of eco-spheres by a massive hydrological event like Noahs flood. this is very simplistic, for it would take pages to express all the tested, observed and repeated phenomena of hydraulic sortation of living creatures by floods.

 

[nolidad]

Why do I need to do that?

Do not make ignorant demands. You can ask how we know things, but you first need to admit your own errors at a minimum.

So you have no answer to that?

And what errors are you demand I admit?

 

[nolidad]

Wrong. To try to falsify a hypothesis is exactly how hypotheses are tested. The more a theory can be shown wrong in a test and the more often a hypothesis or theory survives such a test the more confident scientists become.
Unfalisfiability is the feature of pseudosciences like creationism.

Do you hear yourself?

Teh more we can show a hypotheses wrong- the more confidence you have in it?

Actually teh more you can prove it wrong and it survives- which means you did not prove it wrong.

I understand testing a hypothesis, but if it becomes a "law of science" it means it can no longer be falsified! It has found to be true and factual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then show the mutations that caused scales to become feathers then! should be easy if they have proven ti.

Once again this is an ignorant demand. We know that feathers evolved before birds because most theropod dinosaurs had feathers. There are fossilized feathers and other evidence for this. We do not have DNA from that far back so showing specific mutations may not be possible.

I take it then you haven't kept up with the empirical data that has shown that the assumptions built into the dating methodology have been shown to be empirically false!

Citation needed. Please post a link to a well respected professional journal (by the way that excludes fake creationist "journals").

Well that is what teh believers of TOE do . So don't the textbooks! they do not even call it inferential anymore. It is a declared fact! Just look at any video by Hawkings, Dawkins, et. Al.

Yes, the theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed so many times that it is treated as a fact. Just like gravity.

systemic destruction of eco-spheres by a massive hydrological event like Noahs flood. this is very simplistic, for it would take pages to express all the tested, observed and repeated phenomena of hydraulic sortation of living creatures by floods.

Again, citation needed. There are no such valid articles that I know of that support this claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

You know what I am referring to. theropods turning to avian. That is the scientific consensus.

Yes, the scientific consensus is that birds are dinosaurs. So, I ask again. What is your problem with that? You suggest there is one, but you have failed to specify it.

And how does one go about proving warm bloodedness if there are no feathers or blubber or hair preserved??

We have multiple indicators of warm bloodedness. (It's science. Surely you have been told we don't prove things in science. We determine the most probable explanation. ) So, off the top of my head:

• Several examples of feathered dinosaurs have been found.
• The microstructure of bones is consistent with warm blooded creatures, but inconsistent with cold blooded ones. (This one is key.)
  
• Life style determined from a range of observations (anatomy [gross & detailed], dentition, stomach contents, taphonomy, preservation state including damage, associated fauna, depositional environment,etc.) has been subject to an energy budget analysis that points strongly to warm bloodedness.

so demonstrate jaws to beaks and there you go! You say they have to change so show the change!

Vertebrate palaeontology isn't my speciality. Have you bothered to research the matter yourself? Seek and ye shall find. That would be the honest thing to do. However, let me know if you've avoided that and I'll undertake the literature search on your behalf. It won't make you look good, but that's your problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have no answer to that?

And what errors are you demand I admit?

No, you made a rather ignorant and foolish demand. We don't need the mutations, we have the fossils of ancestors.

And you have been endlessly corrected. Please pay attention. When you acknowledge your errors then you can start to make demands. Unfortunately your demands demonstrate how little you know. Demanding ancient mutations is ignorant because we have no ancient DNA. We have other ways, once again actual fossilized feathered dinosaurs for example, that show you to be wrong.

 

[pitabread]

Demanding ancient mutations is ignorant because we have no ancient DNA.

There is ancestral genome reconstruction which biologists use to test molecular evolutionary pathways. But it's true we don't have ancient DNA past a certain point.

 

[nolidad]

The physical changes are visible in patterns of preserved fossils over time. But since you've decided to arbitrarily dismiss the fossil record...

No I do not arbitrarily dismiss the fossil record. But it just shows that a creture with a certain bone structure once lived!

Placement and positioning also plays a key to try to show evolution.
But many "evolutionary trees" have been debunked even by evolutionists.

It does not prove evolution. It shows similarities and differences. It doesn't demonstrate mutations occuring and in every evolutionary tree there are still all sorts of gaps in the most important places.

Define "kind". Quantify it with respect to biology.

Genus and in some cases family. Like cannidae is both a genus and family name. Even in the Linnean classification there is an arbitrariness to it in areas especially when we get more specific like genus species sub species etc.

 

[nolidad]

No, you made a rather ignorant and foolish demand. We don't need the mutations, we have the fossils of ancestors.

And you have been endlessly corrected. Please pay attention. When you acknowledge your errors then you can start to make demands. Unfortunately your demands demonstrate how little you know. Demanding ancient mutations is ignorant because we have no ancient DNA. We have other ways, once again actual fossilized feathered dinosaurs for example, that show you to be wrong.

But those feathers had to have evolved from scales at some point or evolve from something else at some point. Unless you are hypothesizing that the earliest life according to TOE had feathers, you need to show how feathers evolved from scales or hair.

Fossils don't prove evolution- they prove existence.

The hypothesis is that theropods evolved into birds. That is accepted but not empirically tested so it falls outside of the scientific method of establishing scientific fact. so it remains just an educated hypothesis that will remain unprovable. It is a philosophical belief of most scientists.

They cannot demonstrate solid bone to avian hollow bone
they cannot show jaw to beak
they cannot show scales to feathers.
they cannot demonstrate the change in instinct from runner to flyer
The change in the respiratory system
The change in organs necessary
The change required to go from running to perching
I could go on but I think you get the picture. They just fill in teh gaps with educated guesses without solid evidence.

That is why we see in so many peer approved scientific journal and research the standard terms like

appear,
we think
may have
could have
possibly

And yet they call it proven with those words.

Amnd please list a few of my "demonstrated errors."

 

[Brightmoon]

Sorry i prefer to think a rabbit is superior or greater to an amoeba, and a human to a rabbit in some ways.

you can think that but it’s basically because rabbits are closely related to us and amoebas aren’t . So we think rabbits are cuter because they behave a little like us and we share basic anatomy

 

[pitabread]

It does not prove evolution. It shows similarities and differences.

It's more than just similarities and differences. It shows patterns of changes over time.

It doesn't demonstrate mutations occuring and in every evolutionary tree there are still all sorts of gaps in the most important places.

As I said, it's the same process. We know that genetic changes occur in organisms from one generation to the next and that genetic changes lead to changes in phenotypes (e.g. biological forms). This is all directly observable in the evolutionary processes we see today.

Genus and in some cases family. Like cannidae is both a genus and family name. Even in the Linnean classification there is an arbitrariness to it in areas especially when we get more specific like genus species sub species etc.

If you're just piggybacking onto the Linnaean classification system, that doesn't really demonstrate anything. Classifications like genus, family, etc., are just arbitrary human assignments to make it easier to talk about groups of organisms. They have no intrinsic biological reality.

If you want to argue there are biological limits to evolutionary change, you need to come up with something else. Linnaean classification doesn't support that.

 

[Strathos]

Not if you're trying to play certain classic video games.

Emulators.

 

[Speedwell]

But those feathers had to have evolved from scales at some point or evolve from something else at some point. Unless you are hypothesizing that the earliest life according to TOE had feathers, you need to show how feathers evolved from scales or hair.

Fossils don't prove evolution- they prove existence.

The hypothesis is that theropods evolved into birds. That is accepted but not empirically tested so it falls outside of the scientific method of establishing scientific fact. so it remains just an educated hypothesis that will remain unprovable. It is a philosophical belief of most scientists.

They cannot demonstrate solid bone to avian hollow bone
they cannot show jaw to beak
they cannot show scales to feathers.
they cannot demonstrate the change in instinct from runner to flyer
The change in the respiratory system
The change in organs necessary
The change required to go from running to perching
I could go on but I think you get the picture. They just fill in teh gaps with educated guesses without solid evidence.

That is why we see in so many peer approved scientific journal and research the standard terms like

appear,
we think
may have
could have
possibly

And yet they call it proven with those words.

Amnd please list a few of my "demonstrated errors."

That scientific that scientific theories can be "proven." Scientific theories are the products of inductive logic. Consequently, scientific theories are in principle always held provisionally, pending new evidence. "Proof" is reserved for axiomatic formal systems like math or deductive logic.

That the fossil record is supposed by paleontologists to "prove" evolution. The fossil record exhibits patterns which are consistent with an evolutionary explanation, so it is said to "confirm" not "prove" evolution, until such time (if any) that fossils are discovered which do not conform to evolutionary predictions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But those feathers had to have evolved from scales at some point or evolve from something else at some point. Unless you are hypothesizing that the earliest life according to TOE had feathers, you need to show how feathers evolved from scales or hair.

Yes, they had to evolve from scales at one point. The fact is that we know it happened because there is a fossil record of it. In fact the oldest feather fossils are the simplest. Just a general plume. Which is what is to be expected. If you asked proper questions I would provide evidence.

Fossils don't prove evolution- they prove existence.

You are misusing terminology. There is no "proof" in the sciences. There is only evidence. Fossils are scientific evidence for evolution and evolution only. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. If you understood the concept of evidence you might understand why evolution is treated as a fact.

The hypothesis is that theropods evolved into birds. That is accepted but not empirically tested so it falls outside of the scientific method of establishing scientific fact. so it remains just an educated hypothesis that will remain unprovable. It is a philosophical belief of most scientists.

What makes you think that it is not empirically tested? It is supported by empirical evidence. And no, it is right smack in the middle of the scientific method. We may have to go over the concept of evidence. And you once again improperly used a variation of the term "prove".

They cannot demonstrate solid bone to avian hollow bone
they cannot show jaw to beak
they cannot show scales to feathers.
they cannot demonstrate the change in instinct from runner to flyer
The change in the respiratory system
The change in organs necessary
The change required to go from running to perching
I could go on but I think you get the picture. They just fill in teh gaps with educated guesses without solid evidence.

What makes you think that is the case? Scales to feathers is rather well documented for example. I do not think that you have been following the studies in this area.

That is why we see in so many peer approved scientific journal and research the standard terms like

appear,
we think
may have
could have
possibly

And yet they call it proven with those words.

One has to use proper terminology in journals and you have just as much as admitted that you are wrong by grasping at straws. You ignore the fact that why they used those terms. All of those claims are supported by evidence. Without evidence they cannot even use those cautious terms in the sciences.

Amnd please list a few of my "demonstrated errors."

Read almost any response to your posts. For example your rather ignorant demand for specific mutations in ancient DNA. That was an error on your part.

 

[pitabread]

Emulators.

Sure, but that doesn't solve the latency issue that modern displays have compared to old-school CRT monitors and TVs. There are classic games that play better on those setups for that reason alone.

 

[Ophiolite]

So we think rabbits are cuter because they behave a little like us

Do you mean that like a proportion of humans, some examples of whom can be found on CF, when they find themselves in a hole they keep on digging?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That scientific that scientific theories can be "proven." Scientific theories are the products of inductive logic. Consequently, scientific theories are in principle always held provisionally, pending new evidence. "Proof" is reserved for axiomatic formal systems like math or deductive logic.

That the fossil record is supposed by paleontologists to "prove" evolution. The fossil record exhibits patterns which are consistent with an evolutionary explanation, so it is said to "confirm" not "prove" evolution, until such time (if any) that fossils are discovered which do not conform to evolutionary predictions.

<Bolding mine>
Yep, one can disprove a theory, but one cannot "prove" it. And with over 150 years and creationists cannot disprove the theory of evolution. Instead we find more and more evidence that supports it. And a side note to creationists, just because evidence cannot be found to disprove a theory does not mean that it is unfalsifiable. All that is required for a theory to be falsifiable is an example of evidence that would show it to be wrong. If that evidence cannot be found it bodes well for the theory and poorly for naysayers.