What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[BobRyan]

I see that you definitely did not understand the test.

I was about to make that claim about your own post but decided not to.

"The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment at the time supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year.[3][4][5]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported"

Someone should have told those scientists after 2007 that they did not need to open the vials since there is conceivably 70 years of much more confirmation waiting to be looked at.

hint: the focus on how many amino acids were produced because as it turns out - you need amino acids to make proteins and proteins to make cell structures enzymes etc. you know... the obvious.

But when "every outcome" is registered as "success" and the statement made on this forum "could not falsify anything" is added... one begins to see the pattern emerge.

 

[BobRyan]

Anyone else find it odd that creationists still obsess over the Miller-Urey experiment, when there has been ~70 years of research into abiogenesis since?Miller-Urey was hardly the final word on abiogenesis.

Its no accident that those 70 years still sound like 'crickets....crickets..." even on this thread by those who claim to favor abiogenesis

 

[Speedwell]

I was about to make that claim about your own post but decided not to.

"The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment at the time supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year.[3][4][5]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported"

hint: the focus on how many amino acids were produced because as it turns out - you need amino acids to make proteins and proteins to make cell structures enzymes etc. you know... the obvious.

And?

But when "every outcome" is registered as "success" and the statement made on this forum "could not falsify anything" is added... one begins to see the pattern emerge.

You seem to think you are making an obvious point, but you're being much too coy, because I am missing it entirely.

 

[Speedwell]

Its no accident that those 70 years still sound like 'crickets....crickets..." even on this thread by those who claim to favor abiogenesis

You really think nothing has been done since then?

 

[BobRyan]

You really think nothing has been done since then?

I am not the one on the hook to produce the "success" version of a 70 year old failed experiment. I leave that to others.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not the one on the hook to produce the "success" version of a 70 year old failed experiment. I leave that to others.

I don't know why you persist in calling it a failed experiment. It succeeded pretty well for a primitive attempt, but time and scientific research have passed it by. But what is this "hook" you are talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was about to make that claim about your own post but decided not to.

"The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment at the time supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year.[3][4][5]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported"

Someone should have told those scientists after 2007 that they did not need to open the vials since there is conceivably 70 years of much more confirmation waiting to be looked at.

hint: the focus on how many amino acids were produced because as it turns out - you need amino acids to make proteins and proteins to make cell structures enzymes etc. you know... the obvious.

But when "every outcome" is registered as "success" and the statement made on this forum "could not falsify anything" is added... one begins to see the pattern emerge.

Wow!! Amazing self inflicted blindness. At the time of the experiment creationist types argued that amino acids could not form naturally. That is without a living source. The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that they can arise naturally. How is that not a success? And then as you pointed out there were even more amino acids than were first thought to be the case. You may not realize this, but the sciences are constantly advancing. Amino acids existed but could not be detected with the technology of that time. Since then our technology has improved and it was shown that the Miller-Urey experiment was an even greater success than first thought.


What do creationist use for "logic"? I will never know. And I told you that this is the sort of experiment that could only confirm. It cannot refute. You seem to be having a hard problem understanding this. Experiments that can refute are the preferred experiment. They tell us a lot more than experiments that merely confirm.

 

[pitabread]

Its no accident that those 70 years still sound like 'crickets....crickets..." even on this thread by those who claim to favor abiogenesis

Except it's not "crickets". There has been active and ongoing research into abiogenesis since Urey-Miller. Don't blame a failure to keep up-to-date with the research on others.

If you want some contemporary research into abiogenesis, I suggest reading up on the work of Jack Szostak: Szostak Lab: Publications

 

[pitabread]

I don't know why you persist in calling it a failed experiment.

Seems to be projection on their part.

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

Feathers, scales and hair (or fur) are all forms of keratin.


It has been demonstrated (see below) that all evolved from a common 'placode' which originally resulted in scales.

Hairs, feathers and scales have a lot in common (phys.org)
Today, Nicolas Di-Poï and Michel C. Milinkovitch at the Department of Genetics and Evolution of the UNIGE Faculty of Science and at the SIB put this long controversy to rest by demonstrating that scales in reptiles develop from a placode with all the anatomical and molecular signatures of avian and mammalian placodes. The two scientists finely observed and analysed the skin morphological and molecular characteristics during embryonic development in crocodiles, snakes and lizards. 'Our study not only provides new molecular data that complement the work of the American team but also reveals key microanatomical facts, explains Michel Milinkovitch. Indeed, we have identified in reptiles new molecular signatures that are identical to those observed during the development of hairs and feathers, as well as the presence of the same anatomical placode as in mammals and birds. This indicates that the three types of skin appendages are homologous: the reptilian scales, the avian feathers and the mammalian hairs, despite their very different final shapes, evolved from the scales of their reptilian common ancestor.'
(acknowledgement to @jayem for the original link in Beneficial Mutations)

​

This article talks about the specific genes involved in the evolutionary conversion of scales to feathers.

Using modern genomics to turn alligator scales into birdlike feathers (phys.org)
And in a new study published in the advanced online edition of Molecular Biology and Evolution, Chuong has led an international team to identify a plethora of new genes involved in scale and feather development.

"We now have a potential molecular explanation for these hypothesized missing links," said Chuong.

They have also demonstrated the ability to turn scales into feathers, by turning on and off key molecular circuits at critical stages of scale growth and development.
​

OB

​

 

[nolidad]

Hairs, feathers and scales have a lot in common (phys.org)
Today, Nicolas Di-Poï and Michel C. Milinkovitch at the Department of Genetics and Evolution of the UNIGE Faculty of Science and at the SIB put this long controversy to rest by demonstrating that scales in reptiles develop from a placode with all the anatomical and molecular signatures of avian and mammalian placodes. The two scientists finely observed and analysed the skin morphological and molecular characteristics during embryonic development in crocodiles, snakes and lizards. 'Our study not only provides new molecular data that complement the work of the American team but also reveals key microanatomical facts, explains Michel Milinkovitch. Indeed, we have identified in reptiles new molecular signatures that are identical to those observed during the development of hairs and feathers, as well as the presence of the same anatomical placode as in mammals and birds. This indicates that the three types of skin appendages are homologous: the reptilian scales, the avian feathers and the mammalian hairs, despite their very different final shapes, evolved from the scales of their reptilian common ancestor.'

You know a seventh grade kid in science can show why this is so patently wrong in proving evolution, or that they are of common descent.

The genome of each carries information to make one a scale, one a feather, and one a hair, in modern animals! It doesn't show how there were scales and then how the information the genome was rewritten to produce feathers instead!

Using modern genomics to turn alligator scales into birdlike feathers (phys.org)
And in a new study published in the advanced online edition of Molecular Biology and Evolution, Chuong has led an international team to identify a plethora of new genes involved in scale and feather development.

"We now have a potential molecular explanation for these hypothesized missing links," said Chuong.

They have also demonstrated the ability to turn scales into feathers, by turning on and off key molecular circuits at critical stages of scale growth and development.

Is this the croco-chick experiment? where they took the genetics of a chicken feather, placed it in the embryo of a crocodile and got something that was merely a splayed scute?

This just proves that modern scientists can do some amazing transplantation- not take a critter that has no genetics for a feather and produce the info necessary to take that initial info that is common in all three types mentioned above and turn the scute/scale into a feather.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know a seventh grade kid in science can show why this is so patently wrong in proving evolution, or that they are of common descent.

The genome of each carries information to make one a scale, one a feather, and one a hair, in modern animals! It doesn't show how there were scales and then how the information the genome was rewritten to produce feathers instead!



Is this the croco-chick experiment? where they took the genetics of a chicken feather, placed it in the embryo of a crocodile and got something that was merely a splayed scute?

This just proves that modern scientists can do some amazing transplantation- not take a critter that has no genetics for a feather and produce the info necessary to take that initial info that is common in all three types mentioned above and turn the scute/scale into a feather.

A person with a seventh grade level of education might believe that he refuted this. He would be wrong.

 

[nolidad]

A person with a seventh grade level of education might believe that he refuted this. He would be wrong.

Well it does not show evolution via teh consensus mechanism- random, unplanned mutations that provide previously unwritten information into the genome.

If scales, feathers, and hair are gentically homologous- then we should see at least occasional humans with scales or snakes with hair etc.etc.etc. but we don't because teh genome and the placodes (though they are similar) also contain the differences.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well it does not show evolution via teh consensus mechanism- random, unplanned mutations that provide previously unwritten information into the genome.

If scales, feathers, and hair are gentically homologous- then we should see at least occasional humans with scales or snakes with hair etc.etc.etc. but we don't because teh genome and the placodes (though they are similar) also contain the differences.

You dont even understand the basics of the ToE (or biology).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well it does not show evolution via teh consensus mechanism- random, unplanned mutations that provide previously unwritten information into the genome.

If scales, feathers, and hair are gentically homologous- then we should see at least occasional humans with scales or snakes with hair etc.etc.etc. but we don't because teh genome and the placodes (though they are similar) also contain the differences.

Epidermolytic ichthyosis

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well it does not show evolution via teh consensus mechanism- random, unplanned mutations that provide previously unwritten information into the genome.

If scales, feathers, and hair are gentically homologous- then we should see at least occasional humans with scales or snakes with hair etc.etc.etc. but we don't because teh genome and the placodes (though they are similar) also contain the differences.

Interesting bit of word salad. That is an incredibly inaccurate description of evolution and a demonstration of a lack of understanding of the scientific method, scientific evidence, and of course evolution itself.

And no, the fact that they are homologous does not mean that we should observe that. There have been quite a few changes in the original structure to arrive at feathers and fur. Too many to have pop up all at once, as in the creationist strawman version of evolution. Since those changes evolved after the split in ancestors if they showed up it would be evidence against evolution.

 

[Occams Barber]

You know a seventh grade kid in science can show why this is so patently wrong in proving evolution, or that they are of common descent.

This just proves that modern scientists can do some amazing transplantation- not take a critter that has no genetics for a feather and produce the info necessary to take that initial info that is common in all three types mentioned above and turn the scute/scale into a fea

You asked for evidence showing ' how feathers evolved from scales or hair'.

I provided that evidence in the form of summaries of two separate scientific studies. The (simplified) conclusions from these studies were:

This indicates that the three types of skin appendages are homologous: the reptilian scales, the avian feathers and the mammalian hairs, despite their very different final shapes, evolved from the scales of their reptilian common ancestor.'

They have also demonstrated the ability to turn scales into feathers, by turning on and off key molecular circuits at critical stages of scale growth and development.

The first study establishes that feathers and hair evolved from scales.

The second describes the process by which this transition occurs; i.e. by turning on and off key molecular circuits at critical stages of scale growth.

If you wish to dispute these findings, can I ask that you do me the courtesy of providing links to published studies by qualified scientists.


OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Well it does not show evolution via teh consensus mechanism- random, unplanned mutations that provide previously unwritten information into the genome.

If scales, feathers, and hair are gentically homologous- then we should see at least occasional humans with scales or snakes with hair etc.etc.etc. but we don't because teh genome and the placodes (though they are similar) also contain the differences.

How about birds with scales?

Interestingly it appears that bird scales may have re-evolved after the development of feathers. The switch from scales to feathers and back appears to be an easy transition.
It seems to be a minor change to regulatory genes as opposed to any major modification to structural genes.

From Bird anatomy - Wikipedia

The scales of birds are composed of keratin, like beaks, claws, and spurs. They are found mainly on the toes and tarsi (lower leg of birds), usually up to the tibio-tarsal joint, but may be found further up the legs in some birds. In many of the eagles and owls the legs are feathered down to (but not including) their toes.[37][38][39] Most bird scales do not overlap significantly, except in the cases of kingfishers and woodpeckers. The scales and scutes of birds were originally thought to be homologous to those of reptiles;[40] however, more recent research suggests that scales in birds re-evolved after the evolution of feathers.[41][42][43]

Bird embryos begin development with smooth skin. On the feet, the corneum, or outermost layer, of this skin may keratinize, thicken and form scales. These scales can be organized into;

• Cancella – minute scales which are really just a thickening and hardening of the skin, crisscrossed with shallow grooves.
• Scutella – scales that are not quite as large as scutes, such as those found on the caudal, or hind part, of the chicken metatarsus.
• Scutes – the largest scales, usually on the anterior surface of the metatarsus and dorsal surface of the toes.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

If scales, feathers, and hair are gentically homologous- then we should see at least occasional humans with scales or snakes with hair etc.etc.etc. but we don't because teh genome and the placodes (though they are similar) also contain the differences.

How about scaleless snakes with just plain skin, i.e., no scales:

From 8 Curious Facts About Scaleless Snakes (treehugger.com)

2. Many Snake Species Are Scaleless
Snakes' lack of scales is not confined to one species — many different types of snakes have been found to have this unique trait. The most common scaleless snake is the brightly colored scaleless corn snake, which is especially popular in captive breeding programs. Other species that have had the trait include the Texas ratsnake, gopher snake, garter snake, and ball python.
​

OB

EDIT: the outer layer of skin in vertebrates is also made of keratin.

 

[Occams Barber]

If scales, feathers, and hair are gentically homologous- then we should see at least occasional humans with scales or snakes with hair etc.etc.etc. but we don't because teh genome and the placodes (though they are similar) also contain the differences.

Then there's this scaly mammal (remember -outer skin in vertebrates is made of keratin - as are scales):

From Pangolin - Wikipedia
Pangolins have large, protective keratin scales covering their skin; they are the only known mammals with this feature.

​

OB