What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[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.

I could go on - there are spiny mammals with spines/quills made with the same basic set of keratin genes (hedgehogs, echidnas and porcupines). There are (practically) hairless mammals (whales, dolphins, dugong, manatee) with waterproof skin from a specific type(s) of keratin.

Looking at mammals alone the possibilities include fur, skin (waterproof and not-waterproof), scales or spines/quills - all from the same class of animals possessing a similar set of genes dictating how keratin will be formed to create an external covering.

OB

 

[nolidad]

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.

Well the scientific method is hypothesize, test, repeat, observe. show why don't you show how taking feather genes from a chick embryo and putting them in a croc embryo proves that scales turned into feathers X millions of years ago.

 

[nolidad]

I could go on - there are spiny mammals with spines/quills made with the same basic set of keratin genes (hedgehogs, echidnas and porcupines). There are (practically) hairless mammals (whales, dolphins, dugong, manatee) with waterproof skin from a specific type(s) of keratin.

Looking at mammals alone the possibilities include fur, skin (waterproof and not-waterproof), scales or spines/quills - all from the same class of animals possessing a similar set of genes dictating how keratin will be formed to create an external covering.

OB

Well the issue is not how similar they are. they are different enough so that people don't grow feathers everyonce in a while or quills or spines etc.

What you evolutionists need to show is that at one time scales became feathers as evolutionists have declared took place!

 

[nolidad]

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.

Actually it is a very accurate and very concise way of saying how evolution occurred according to evolutionists.

It boils down from microbe to man via unplanned random mutations preserved by natural selection! Natural selection cannot communicate to DNA that the creature now needs to slowly bit by bit develop feathers from scales and all the rest that took a theropod and turn it into an avian bird

Well evolutionists do not have the evidence to show the eons long proicesses thbat took a scale and turned it into a feather. They have ideas, guesses and Possible maybe things- but that is not empirical evidence.

 

[nolidad]

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

Well I am not going to write a two page dissertation here. But evolution on the macro scale is microbes to man via mutations preserved by natural selection.

If you want to argue all the minutae- you will win. But you cannot prove or verify that mutations took a microbe over X millions of years and finally arrived at man through the tree of life with all its branches.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well I am not going to write a two page dissertation here. But evolution on the macro scale is microbes to man via mutations preserved by natural selection.

If you want to argue all the minutae- you will win. But you cannot prove or verify that mutations took a microbe over X millions of years and finally arrived at man through the tree of life with all its branches.

Heh, thanks for the QED.

 

[pitabread]

But you cannot prove or verify that mutations took a microbe over X millions of years and finally arrived at man through the tree of life with all its branches.

Genomic comparisons suggest otherwise. If life doesn't share common ancestry, then it begs the question as to why a creator would make it look that way.

 

[pitabread]

Natural selection cannot communicate to DNA that the creature now needs to slowly bit by bit develop feathers from scales and all the rest that took a theropod and turn it into an avian bird

Of course not, because that's not how the process works. If you're conceptualizing evolution as a sentient or directed process, then that's an issue with your conceptual understanding of evolution, not the process itself.

 

[nolidad]

Heh, thanks for the QED.

Well briefly- is there any error in the phrase from microbe to man over X millions of years via unplanned mutations preserved by natural selection?

List anything factually wrong here.

After all even you can on on the internet- look up some non technical language scientists talk about evolution and that is what they basically say.

1.According to TOE our original daddy was that original microbe that came to life in ways some scientists say that don't have a clue how it could have happened.

2. Our original poppa changed bit by bit over long periods of time and changed little by little until it became something different quantitatively ( no longer that original kind of microbe but a completely new genus then phyla then order and on and on)

3. That original microbe branched out into the two kingdoms plants and animals

4. Then through the family tree with all its branches biodiversity came to be via these tiny slow bit by bit mutations.

5. Until we finally came on teh scene first as Homo-pithecus, then a complete homo, then through the upward ascent of homo to now (unless they changed the designation) we are called homo sapien sapien.

Now throgh looking at all the horizintal changes that occur in animals you think you might possibly have a valid idea that could bew the way life might have developed!

But you cannot empirically test the tree of life to prove that all them teeny weeny itsy bitsy mutations took a theropod and turned it into a bird! Except of course using a paleo artist working on the imagination of teh scientist telling him what to draw!

 

[nolidad]

Genomic comparisons suggest otherwise. If life doesn't share common ancestry, then it begs the question as to why a creator would make it look that way.

Because yo refuse to see that a Creator in making all life would use a common design for common purposes ( and bring alterations for the needed differences in the common base) and different designs for different purposes.

But when did evolutionists get their hands on all the DNA needed to come to the conclusion that genetically we are related to a 500 million year old worm?

Why should God use DNA for say half of life and something different for th eother half?

Why should God make skin enormously different for those creatures He made with an epidermis?

Why should he alter teh basic structure of a feather for all birds? He gave them different sizes and colors and even types of plumage- but they are all basically similar.
Every boat looks somewhat different, but also somewhat the same. They all have the same baisc structure and differences where they ser ve different purposes. Just like life.

 

[Speedwell]

Because yo refuse to see that a Creator in making all life would use a common design for common purposes ( and bring alterations for the needed differences in the common base) and different designs for different purposes.

Or, He could use biological evolution and achieve the same result.

 

[pitabread]

Because yo refuse to see that a Creator in making all life would use a common design for common purposes ( and bring alterations for the needed differences in the common base) and different designs for different purposes.

Except that's what nature shows. A designer could easily have created all sorts of things that wouldn't necessarily adhere to constraints via hereditary descent. In fact, if a designer had been creating living things, you'd expect nature to be full of chimeric organisms for which would completely defy evolution. Yet nature doesn't features those things. Instead the genetics of organisms are by-and-large constrained by inheritance and common descent.

But when did evolutionists get their hands on all the DNA needed to come to the conclusion that genetically we are related to a 500 million year old worm?

Because that's what biologists have been doing for decades. There is an entire field dedicated to this. It's called genomics. You can look it up.

Every boat looks somewhat different, but also somewhat the same. They all have the same baisc structure and differences where they ser ve different purposes. Just like life.

Awhile back I tested if designed objects (specifically cars and trucks) would fall into similar patterns as living ones. It turns out that designed objects *don't* fall into those patterns. Which would be expected since designed objects are not constrained by genetic inheritance.

 

[pitabread]

But you cannot empirically test the tree of life to prove that all them teeny weeny itsy bitsy mutations took a theropod and turned it into a bird!

Sure they can. It's tested through genetics/genomics, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, etc.

The most critical thing is that if life is related through common ancestry it places specific hereditary constraints on that life and consequently the genomes of the organisms. This is something that a designer wouldn't be constrained by.

So relationships between organisms can be tested on that basis.

Now if creationists wanted to argue otherwise, the most apt way of doing that would be coming up with a mechanism by which a designer would have created individual living organisms. Then they could extrapolate from that mechanism for specific markers that would indicate design.

But since creationists seem to have no interest in figuring out how a designer would create living things, they're stuck.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well briefly- is there any error in the phrase from microbe to man over X millions of years via unplanned mutations preserved by natural selection?

List anything factually wrong here.

After all even you can on on the internet- look up some non technical language scientists talk about evolution and that is what they basically say.

1.According to TOE our original daddy was that original microbe that came to life in ways some scientists say that don't have a clue how it could have happened.

2. Our original poppa changed bit by bit over long periods of time and changed little by little until it became something different quantitatively ( no longer that original kind of microbe but a completely new genus then phyla then order and on and on)

3. That original microbe branched out into the two kingdoms plants and animals

4. Then through the family tree with all its branches biodiversity came to be via these tiny slow bit by bit mutations.

5. Until we finally came on teh scene first as Homo-pithecus, then a complete homo, then through the upward ascent of homo to now (unless they changed the designation) we are called homo sapien sapien.

Now throgh looking at all the horizintal changes that occur in animals you think you might possibly have a valid idea that could bew the way life might have developed!

But you cannot empirically test the tree of life to prove that all them teeny weeny itsy bitsy mutations took a theropod and turned it into a bird! Except of course using a paleo artist working on the imagination of teh scientist telling him what to draw!

So many errors. You really are wholly ignorant about the ToE.

Luckily Im not responsible for your education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it is a very accurate and very concise way of saying how evolution occurred according to evolutionists.

It boils down from microbe to man via unplanned random mutations preserved by natural selection! Natural selection cannot communicate to DNA that the creature now needs to slowly bit by bit develop feathers from scales and all the rest that took a theropod and turn it into an avian bird

Well evolutionists do not have the evidence to show the eons long proicesses thbat took a scale and turned it into a feather. They have ideas, guesses and Possible maybe things- but that is not empirical evidence.

No, it is nonsense and word salad. You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand basic biology in this post of yours. There is no need to communicate with DNA. Why would you even make such a statement. You should try to learn how evolution works and not rely on a false strawman.

I can see one clear error that you are making. Evolution does not work on goals. It only works on results. Feathers were never a goal of evolution. That by the way is a strawman since no one one the evolution side claims that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because yo refuse to see that a Creator in making all life would use a common design for common purposes ( and bring alterations for the needed differences in the common base) and different designs for different purposes.

An incompetent of limited power would do that. Are you sure that you want to describe your God that way?

But when did evolutionists get their hands on all the DNA needed to come to the conclusion that genetically we are related to a 500 million year old worm?

Not all that much is needed.

Why should God use DNA for say half of life and something different for th eother half?

Because there are likely better ways to do it.

Why should God make skin enormously different for those creatures He made with an epidermis?

Again, because of different needs. What we end up with your method is saying that God had to make it look as if life evolved with all of its endless flaws because he could do no better. There are built in flaws in life that make perfect sense if life was the product of evolution, but no sense at all if that life was designed. One point to remember, creationists cannot seem to find any scientific evidence for ID.

Why should he alter teh basic structure of a feather for all birds? He gave them different sizes and colors and even types of plumage- but they are all basically similar.
Every boat looks somewhat different, but also somewhat the same. They all have the same baisc structure and differences where they ser ve different purposes. Just like life.

Again, he is supposed to be all powerful and omniscient. It would take no effort at all for him to custom design all life, if it was designed. Instead what we see is life full of flaws that can only be explained by evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the scientific method is hypothesize, test, repeat, observe. show why don't you show how taking feather genes from a chick embryo and putting them in a croc embryo proves that scales turned into feathers X millions of years ago.

Oh my! So you do not even understand the scientific method.

Nothing is "proven" in science. There is only evidence. And the experiment given is evidence for evolution of feathers. There is strong evidence for the evolution of feathers and no scientific evidence at all for ID.

The experiment that you asked about allows us to better understand how feathers likely evolved.

Now why isn't there any evidence for ID. And in case you think there is please read my sig. To have evidence you must first have a falsifiable hypothesis. Tests that can falsify one's ideas are a must. If one cannot think of a test that could falsify your beliefs based on the merits of your idea it has no evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well briefly- is there any error in the phrase from microbe to man over X millions of years via unplanned mutations preserved by natural selection?

List anything factually wrong here.

After all even you can on on the internet- look up some non technical language scientists talk about evolution and that is what they basically say.

1.According to TOE our original daddy was that original microbe that came to life in ways some scientists say that don't have a clue how it could have happened.

Possibly. Abiogenesis isn't built up enough to be theory yet. There might be systems whereby DNA/RNA we wouldn't call life replicated in existing natural matrix of rock or sand before cells had developed as a by product of this interaction.

Life didn't exist, then single celled life existed. The exact how will probably never be known, but the study of the possible and reasonable mechanisms goes on.

2. Our original poppa changed bit by bit over long periods of time and changed little by little until it became something different quantitatively ( no longer that original kind of microbe but a completely new genus then phyla then order and on and on)

Just to clarify, you are describing the action of countless individuals over countless generation, not a single individual or single parent child line.

3. That original microbe branched out into the two kingdoms plants and animals

There would have been an enourmous variety of different lines of cells at that point, but two varieties of one of the varieties, Eukaryotes, did develop into the branches that became plants on one side and animals and fungi on the other.

4. Then through the family tree with all its branches biodiversity came to be via these tiny slow bit by bit mutations.

Yes. Millions of generations and a process that we can trivially still see occurring today.

5. Until we finally came on teh scene first as Homo-pithecus, then a complete homo, then through the upward ascent of homo to now (unless they changed the designation) we are called homo sapien sapien.

I think you meant Australopithecus, but regardless, a branch of the primate family living on the savanna of Africa characterised an upright gait and more sophisticated use of tools eventually led to the evolution of Homo sapiens.

Upward ascent is a flawed way of looking at it... there was a variety of species with different abilities and levels of intelligence spread across the world. A sequence of climate changes left the probably smarter and more creative Homo sapiens with the edge over the others, but without a more developed set of technology we wouldn't have been competitive in Europe unless the Ice Age ended.

Now throgh looking at all the horizintal changes that occur in animals you think you might possibly have a valid idea that could bew the way life might have developed!

What horizontal changes that occur in animals?

Horizontal gene transfer occurs in single celled organisms. It's not common in more complex animals.

But you cannot empirically test the tree of life to prove that all them teeny weeny itsy bitsy mutations took a theropod and turned it into a bird! Except of course using a paleo artist working on the imagination of teh scientist telling him what to draw!

We can study the structure of dinosaurs and the structure of birds, we can study the development of birds and we can study the atavistic genes left over in their DNA from when they had different structures.

We can make reasonable deductions from how life operates now and from the evidence of ancient remains and environments remnants.

Reasonable in this context means coherent physical remnants, not baseless denial dressed as logical skepticism.

 

[pitabread]

What horizontal changes that occur in animals?

Horizontal gene transfer occurs in single celled organisms. It's not common in more complex animals.

In fairness, HGT does appear to have impacted genomes of more complex animals. But we do know of the mechanisms by which this can occur (e.g. viruses).

 

[Shemjaza]

In fairness, HGT does appear to have impacted genomes of more complex animals. But we do know of the mechanisms by which this can occur (e.g. viruses).

Ah, fair enough. I wouldn't say that there is any evidence for significant developmental changes due to viral insertions.