What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[nolidad]

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

He could have, but didn't. Proven verified science shows that mutations do far more harm than good. And as the Dean of Harvard genetics once wrote, even the near benign mutations (no such thing as a truly benign mutation) always tend to reduce the viability of a species.

There is no proven example of a mutation adding previously non existent coding to a genome. It has produced information by shuffling pre existing material (Mendels old dominant and recessive producing a new variant) but even these are limited to the information they carried. But mutations never have been shown to add information that was not already in the genome .

 

[essentialsaltes]

But mutations never have been shown to add information that was not already in the genome .

Given typical scientific definitions of information, this is obviously false.

 

[VirOptimus]

Given typical scientific definitions of information, this is obviously false.

Creationists love using concepts like "information", "complexity", "probability" but never understand what they mean or entail.

 

[pitabread]

But mutations never have been shown to add information that was not already in the genome .

Sure they have, at least by any meaningful definition of information as it applies to genetics.

We've already seen every type of mutation that can effectively change the genome: gain-of-function (including production of novel functions), loss-of-function (leading to functional specialization), duplications, and so on.

The "no new information" argument really doesn't hold any water when one considers what we know of genetics/genomics.

 

[tas8831]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion.
While there could be some as-yet hidden "being", there is not any evidence to support the existence of the deities as posited by ancient sooth sayers and holy men from the middle east.

We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it

You DO?
One of many examples:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked! | Society for Scientific Exploration

 

[nolidad]

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.

I know of the field, but there is little to no DNA from 300-500 million year old critters to examine- Studying the actual DNA to determine if mutations occurred on the macro scale is known as empirical science.

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.

And your last phrase is the key. CONSTRAINED by inheritance and descent! DNA just does not wrote new info that previously did not exist in the genome. It can produce a new variant but not novel features not encoded prior.

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.

Actually life has been devolving since God created everything and called it "very good". When sin hit the world- it caused catastrophic consequences. Just like when God wiped the world clean with the flood.

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.

He could have custom designed everything- but He didn't. And what we see in all the flaws is not only explainable by evolution, but by sin and death!

Remember survival of teh fittest is an evolutionary term (though I believe it is now in disfavor for something more subtle that says the same)

 

[pitabread]

I know of the field, but there is little to no DNA from 300-500 million year old critters to examine- Studying the actual DNA to determine if mutations occurred on the macro scale is known as empirical science.

We do however have DNA of present day organisms, plus from extracted DNA from remains going back tens of thousands of years. There are also methods by which ancestral genomes can be inferred (literally, ancestral genome reconstructions).

And your last phrase is the key. CONSTRAINED by inheritance and descent! DNA just does not wrote new info that previously did not exist in the genome. It can produce a new variant but not novel features not encoded prior.

We have examples of mutations producing novel protein functions. This is known.

He could have custom designed everything- but He didn't.

Which begs the question to why God would create a bunch of individual organisms with the appearance of common design.

That's something the creationists have got to puzzle out for themselves.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Well God did create individual organisms. Relationship is simply based on % of genetic similarity. Someone on a thread once said that we are similar to a worm by about 20% (If I remember correctly) So they concluded we are related further down the tree. That is a faulty conclusion based on a presuppositional bias and not actual evidence.

We have no interest simply because the best we can come up with (just like evolutionists) is untestable hypothesis on HOW God created. We know the why, where, and the approximate when. what we can say with absolute confidence is that God said let there be.... and there was. How His creative abilities work is beyind finite mans pay grade.

Evolutionist are determined to seek to remove God from the equation (as Hawkins and many others have openly declared) as irrelevant. But they cannot prove that ape changed to man! If you think they can- yo uneed to study a little more and look at the disagreeing arguments. Man and Ape are morphologically similar but that false 98.9% similar has been proven empirically wrong. The algorithm used was programmed to reach a set conclusion, and lo and behold it did!

 

[nolidad]

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

Luckily Im not responsible for your education.

then I would suggest you place me on ignore so you don't have to bemoan such a troglodyte intellect. I wouldn't want to make you suffer.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Yes there is a need to communicate. To paraphrase evolutionists- enviornemental pressures play a role in forcing evolution along. Forgive the colloquialisms I use but it is saying the same thing in a blue collar way. But DNA does need to be communicate with . It is constantly communicate with by RNA, proteins, etc. to form what is needed to be formed! So to form something that previously did not have information in the genome- there needs to be a method of communication to order the process to alter the base construction.

Well "goals" as you said (not I) are backward looking things. Evolution is supposed to be entirely random, unplanned and undesigned, but even the most famed evolutionist talking heads like Hawkins et. al. speak of the marvelous design of evolution!

 

[nolidad]

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

Well that is your opinion. I have not seen some universal arbiter saying making things with a common purpose have a common design to be incomptetent.

I guess you think car manufacturers are incompetent. Toilet makers. Watchmakers. Home builders. Artists. and everyone else who builds things with a basic common design and add variations. Sorry the rest of us are so beneath you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually life has been devolving since God created everything and called it "very good". When sin hit the world- it caused catastrophic consequences. Just like when God wiped the world clean with the flood.

Genetics refutes the flood story. When you refer to it in this manner you in effect refute yourself. It now is apparent that you are only waving your hands and do not understand the science that your do not like at all.

He could have custom designed everything- but He didn't. And what we see in all the flaws is not only explainable by evolution, but by sin and death!

Remember survival of teh fittest is an evolutionary term (though I believe it is now in disfavor for something more subtle that says the same)

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that creationists distort rather dishonestly. It is in disfavor largely due to that sort of dishonesty. And no, sin and death do not explain anything. Seriously think about it. If man supposedly sinned why punish all life? It appears that you are claiming that God is unjust when you use this argument.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes there is a need to communicate. To paraphrase evolutionists- enviornemental pressures play a role in forcing evolution along. Forgive the colloquialisms I use but it is saying the same thing in a blue collar way. But DNA does need to be communicate with . It is constantly communicate with by RNA, proteins, etc. to form what is needed to be formed! So to form something that previously did not have information in the genome- there needs to be a method of communication to order the process to alter the base construction.

Well "goals" as you said (not I) are backward looking things. Evolution is supposed to be entirely random, unplanned and undesigned, but even the most famed evolutionist talking heads like Hawkins et. al. speak of the marvelous design of evolution!

I suppose that sounds so good to you that you have no interest whatever in finding out about how evolution actually works.

 

[pitabread]

Well God did create individual organisms. Relationship is simply based on % of genetic similarity. Someone on a thread once said that we are similar to a worm by about 20% (If I remember correctly) So they concluded we are related further down the tree. That is a faulty conclusion based on a presuppositional bias and not actual evidence.

It's not strictly about similarity. It's about patterns based on an understanding of the process which creates those patterns.

We have no interest simply because the best we can come up with (just like evolutionists) is untestable hypothesis on HOW God created.

Evolution is testable though. It's tested like anything else in science: hypothesis, predictions, and observations.

You're right though that any appeals to supernatural creation are inherently untestable and thus moot. It's a corner that creationists have backed themselves into.

Evolutionist are determined to seek to remove God from the equation (as Hawkins and many others have openly declared) as irrelevant.

Not strictly speaking. There are many scientists including evolutionary biologists that accept the existence of God.

One's personal belief in God is up to the individual.

But they cannot prove that ape changed to man! If you think they can- yo uneed to study a little more and look at the disagreeing arguments. Man and Ape are morphologically similar but that false 98.9% similar has been proven empirically wrong. The algorithm used was programmed to reach a set conclusion, and lo and behold it did!

I'm well familiar with creationist and Intelligent Design arguments; moreso than the majority of creationists. This is also why I'm familiar with why creationists have utterly failed to dislodge the theory of evolution from the biological sciences and why creationists' effort to do so is pointless.

 

[nolidad]

Because there are likely better ways to do it.

Likely? Well you can talk to God and instruct Him on teh better ways He created all things very good in the beginning.

Not all that much is needed.

Well there is a whole lot less than "not all that much" available. remember it was what about 14 years ago when Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue and DNA from a supposed 75 million year old T-Rex? That still defies all that science believed to be true.

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.

You only say that because you refuse to see the Creative hand of god in a fallen sin mutated world!

As for evidence? I guess you don't bother to read the legion of technical papers produced by Creation Scientists and their testing of teh hypotheses they work with.

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.

there is! You only need take the blinders off you wear!

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.

Well evolutionists use the word prove often in articles pulled off the internet. If it is good enough for them to use it it is good enough for me.

By the way Evolutionists across the spectrum call evolution a fact- facts need incontrovertible evidence (aka proof).

But at least I applaud your hionesty in that you used the word "likely" in describing how you "believe" feathers evolved.

REmember both Creation and TOE/BigBang are both outside the realm of the scientific method. We cannot vwerify what was unseen. One makes reasonable conclusions based on their presuppositional biases, but we were not there to see what evolutionists say occurred at eh big bang nor were we there when God simply spoke and called everything into existence!

But empirical evidence (you know stuff that meets the scientific method of validating a hypotheses with tested, repeated , observed evidence ), I avoided "prove" even though it is a word your side uses with abandon as well, is on the side of Special divine Creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is your opinion. I have not seen some universal arbiter saying making things with a common purpose have a common design to be incomptetent.

I guess you think car manufacturers are incompetent. Toilet makers. Watchmakers. Home builders. Artists. and everyone else who builds things with a basic common design and add variations. Sorry the rest of us are so beneath you.

You ignored why your version of God appears to be incompetent. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an example of incompetent design if one believes in a designer. It is perfectly understandable when it comes to evolution. Waving your hands and claiming that it comes for "sin" does not work either. You would need to explain how sin could cause an incompetent design to evolve.

Human manufacturers have a good reason for reusing the same parts. An all powerful and omniscient designer has no excuse for clearly bad design that a human designer would never use. You are now claiming that your version of God is less competent than man. That sounds like you are pretty close to blasphemy to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Likely? Well you can talk to God and instruct Him on teh better ways He created all things very good in the beginning.

On specific examples I could show how there are better ways to do it. Your assumption that "God did it" is not justified by what we observe in nature. You need to find evidence for your claims. Sadly you have none. All you can do is to wave your hands. At this point it looks more like desperate flapping than anything else.

Well there is a whole lot less than "not all that much" available. remember it was what about 14 years ago when Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue and DNA from a supposed 75 million year old T-Rex? That still defies all that science believed to be true.

It was not 'soft tissue' in the sense that you appear to be using that term. And Mary Schweitzer also found the preservation method. There is nothing that goes against science there. It appears that you are getting your arguments from known lying sources. That does not work with people that have read valid sources on the material.

You only say that because you refuse to see the Creative hand of god in a fallen sin mutated world!

Wrong, try again. And now it appears that you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

As for evidence? I guess you don't bother to read the legion of technical papers produced by Creation Scientists and their testing of teh hypotheses they work with.

Sorry, but that is not "evidence". You can confirm that claim yourself. What reasonable test based upon their ideas could refute their ideas? A strawman version of evolution being involved is an admission on your part that they have no evidence.

Perhaps you should take some time to learn what is and what is not evidence.

there is! You only need take the blinders off you wear!

LOL! You are getting rather excited. Another indication that you know that you are wrong.

Well evolutionists use the word prove often in articles pulled off the internet. If it is good enough for them to use it it is good enough for me.

By the way Evolutionists across the spectrum call evolution a fact- facts need incontrovertible evidence (aka proof).

But at least I applaud your hionesty in that you used the word "likely" in describing how you "believe" feathers evolved.

REmember both Creation and TOE/BigBang are both outside the realm of the scientific method. We cannot vwerify what was unseen. One makes reasonable conclusions based on their presuppositional biases, but we were not there to see what evolutionists say occurred at eh big bang nor were we there when God simply spoke and called everything into existence!

But empirical evidence (you know stuff that meets the scientific method of validating a hypotheses with tested, repeated , observed evidence ), I avoided "prove" even though it is a word your side uses with abandon as well, is on the side of Special divine Creation.

They do use that term? Who knows, they might. But they use it appropriately. Most creationists not so much.

And evolution is a fact. Tell me, is gravity a fact? If you say that one is and the other is not you are being inconsistent.

And no, the Big Bang theory is not outside the scientific method. What makes you think that is the case?

Lastly when I use the word "prove" I tend to be specific in my usage. In the legal sense of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" the theory of evolution is proven. In a mathematical sense it is not. So what standard of "proof" do you want to use? I can state that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. That is a fact that creationists have never been able to refute. And there are no scientific creationist articles that I know of. When they can be published only in "journals" that require their writers not to use the scientific method one cannot claim that they are "scientific".

 

[nolidad]

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.

And never will be! all experiments so far have met with abject failure. Principle of cause and effect plays a big role here. Teh effect cannot be greater than the thing that caused it! IOW non-life cannot beget life!

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

BUT! According to evolutionary thought- it all began when that first non-life became life! Maybe they have changed their guesses (hypotheses) and say multiple differing life forms all began simultaneously but otherwise it all began with that first microbe who is poppa and momma to all life here!

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.

That is what I said, just more colloquially.

And I don't think that any evolutionist has yet come up with a feasible hypothesis explain the Cambrian explosion of life or produce the evidence to give their hypothesis any real validity.

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

Trivially?

We see horizontal changes but no vertical changes. We have never observed the process of say that land mammal turn to whale! NOr has evolutionist shown how th emutative process worked to change a land mammal to whale. They just take some fossils and fill in the missing parts with teh help of paleo-artists to show how it supposedly evolved! I know it is more complicated than that- but when you boil it all down- that is what they do! Because they believe evolution is a fact!

What horizontal changes that occur in animals?

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

Finches change beak shape to adapt to food diets.
Subway rats no longer able to reproduce with outside rats etc.

Horizontal means that it started as a rat and ended as a rat or bird or whatever.

Vertical is the macro hypothesis that says we started as a microbe and through a series of horizontal and vertical mutations we evolved over X millions of years to become man.

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.

Well that is their educated guess (hypothesis.) But Australopithecus is just an ape. southern ape as it name says! but ini teh eons long evolution from ancestral ape to man there had to be a species that was equally ape as man so I named it homo-pithecus!

 

[pitabread]

Principle of cause and effect plays a big role here. Teh effect cannot be greater than the thing that caused it! IOW non-life cannot beget life!

That's not a real thing.

I suggest reading up on the concept of emergent properties: Emergence - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

And never will be! all experiments so far have met with abject failure. Principle of cause and effect plays a big role here. Teh effect cannot be greater than the thing that caused it! IOW non-life cannot beget life!

Oh my! When one starts out a post with such an obvious fail why even read the worst. There have been many successful experiments in abiogenesis. You do not appear to understand what a successful test is.

I would suggest that you at least learn the basics of science before you go on. At this point you are only embarrassing yourself.