What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

Shemjaza · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
Sorry but no cigar for you!

Yes experiments have doen some amaxzing things and produced amazing results!

But those experiments speak more to ID than naturalistic evolution! Also creating amino acids in and of itself is remarkable, but that is still a long way from producing life from non- life!

How?

What has ID got to do with demonstrating that amino acids don't require ID?

nolidad said:
Cause and effect is a rule of nature that has not been disproved! Even if you add other variables to a thing- the effect or result cannot be greater than the various things that caused it.
I don't know the formulas for how to make an atomic bomb for how much of U235 or plutonium to add. But lets say 1 pound of plutonium makes a bomb of 100 kilotons. YOu will not get a greater release of energy unless you add other factors (like tritium) and even then the blast will not be greater than the total energy avsailable!

I think you need to define what you mean by "greater"... because I don't see what point you are trying to make.

If it's that energy transformations and releases aren't perfect, then I agree, but that doesn't cause a problem for evolution or abiogenesis.

Chemistry doesn't have to be perfect... and there needing to be other factors present doesn't mean that ID is required.

nolidad said:
And there might have been an ominpotent God who merely spoke everything into existence

It can't ever be ruled out... but it does require the addition of more elements that are not in evidence.

The geologic column and most ancient fossils show a world populated by very simple life forms with an extremely different atmosphere... the evidence is not for the special creation of a world more or less like our modern one.

nolidad said:
So yo believe in a modified form of punctuated equilibrium then? They call it teh Cambrian Explosion for a reason- all this complex life just appears in th efosil record. Without all teh transitions to support any kind of hypotheses.

You need to define what you mean by those terms, because I don't think you are using the normal definitions.

There are fossils of more complicated life forms from the Precambrian, but they did not have shells or bones so we have very limited evidence for the rest of their biosphere.

The point is that the Cambrian demonstrates the development of bones and shells... which allowed the for the diversification we call the Cambrian Explosion.

There is a question I have never got a reasonable answer from Creationists... why do you attack the Cambrian explosion anyway? Surly you don't actually believe it happened?

Justaman0000 · Jan 8, 2021

Speedwell said:
The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but it is not falsified by the existence of God, with which it is fully compatible.

Edward Blyth has been dead for close on to 150 years--since before the process of peer review for scientific publications was developed.

Parts of the theory of evolution has holes and are falsifiable. Evolution as adaptation to an environment, changes in diet, natural selection, and interbreeding, has been observed. Although these are just examples of microevolution, and not macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution has not been observed, is arguable, and probably always will be because you can't test the DNA of fossils, and there just isn't enough evidence in the fossil record to prove it true. There are many people that believe in evolution and God, and it doesn't hinder their faith.

Shemjaza · Jan 8, 2021

Justaman0000 said:
Parts of the theory of evolution has holes and are falsifiable. Evolution as adaptation to an environment, changes in diet, natural selection, and interbreeding, has been observed. Although these are just examples of microevolution, and not macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution has not been observed, is arguable, and probably always will be because you can't test the DNA of fossils, and there just isn't enough evidence in the fossil record to prove it true. There are many people that believe in evolution and God, and it doesn't hinder their faith.

We have observed speciation which is the first step of macro evolution.

Ring species clearly demonstrate the level of variation possible via micro steps.

And we can test the DNA of more recent fossils, like the Neanderthal genome project for example.

In addition the study of the genetics and morphology of extant species can show the patterns formed by a nested hierarchy demonstrating family relationships.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
Those still follow the laws of sound and effect.

What law is that - can you give a definition?

An "amplifier" is introduced and it will boost the signal withiin teh limits of its ability to amplify!

Yes, and?

So show in nature what secondary cause allows for a greater effect that what caused it!

I don't know what you mean by a 'secondary cause'; how is it relevant?

A lever will boost an ability to lift, but only within the bounds of its strength and limits of the person handling the lever- it is still aall part of cause and effect, all you did was add another factor to consider.

The limits are irrelevant. It is simply an example of a small cause having a larger effect.

Example: A car gets 40 mpg @ 55mph. It is fully tuned and starts on a fully calm day on a 50 mile flat straight road. With no other factos added in that car will stall at 40 miles But if you add other factos like ramping downwared slopes it will increase the mileage but only to teh level the car can react to teh downward slop. One just simmply added in another source of energy (momentum) to teh equation. but teh car still will get only 40 miles for the gallon. It gets it further miles from another source.

So what? how does that counter the possibility of small causes having larger effects?

Does an acorn not grow into an oak tree? Are you not an effect greater than your mother's fertilised ovum?

Speedwell · Jan 8, 2021

Justaman0000 said:
There are many people that believe in evolution and God, and it doesn't hinder their faith.

True. So what's your problem with it? It's merely a scientific theory and if it's wrong, it's wrong. So what?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
I find it interesting that we are supposedly 98.8% identical to apes genetically and yet we can't use their skin like we do pig skin or their insulion like we do with cow and sheep.

In that case you should find it fascinating that, despite there being less genetic variability among the whole human race than in a single whoop of chimpanzees, we can't transfuse blood between large percentages of the human population, and any transplant requires extremely careful donor matching.

Animal insulin is usually taken from pigs and cows and purified for use in humans. Those animals are used because they are domesticated, available in quantity, and ethically acceptable to the authorities; apes, not so much.

nolidad · Jan 8, 2021

Ophiolite said:
You answered your own question. The amplifier amplifies.

And you forget that you have to add the potential extra energy into your equation. so the original potential energy and the energy that can be attained by teh amplifier becomes the new base that cannot be added to.

Example: Your voice is 20 decibels. You add to that strength an amplifier that can add 80 decibels to your voice- new total is 100 decibels. So by adding the amplifier you still have cause and effect. You have a voice and amplifier that can push 100 decibels, you cannot make that combo push out 130 decibels , unless you add another factor and then the new strength is part of the cause as well.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
I have read the rate project report as well as many technical papers.

YOu bigotry against them is noted.

It is still tiredly amusing how evolutionists declare that if a scientist is researching Divinve Creation- they can't possible be doing science.

This is so they don't have to get off their pontifical thrones, and refute their research!

They can just make ex-cathedra blatherings that they don't do real science and that is enough so say they!

Well I guess this aborts this conversation.

You have closed your mind to researching Creationism- so it is pointless to converse with you.

May God show you that you are not related to an ape one day so you can pray

"Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name"

Instead of
"our Father who art in the jungle, King Kong be thy name (irony)

Sadly, your snark, mockery, and denial only emphasise your lack of reasoned argument.

nolidad · Jan 8, 2021

Shemjaza said:
That's not what I said.

The example I was using those animals for is to show that a reasonably smooth transition from medium sized land predator to vast ocean beast has a number of viable options.

Creationists tend to claim that a half transformed whale wouldn't be able to survive... and these creatures demonstrate that it would be possible.

Well now just show that a hippo and a manatee were part of the transitional chain between that furry land animal to furless whale and then we can talk abou tit.

Shemjaza said:
For species that are long extinct we don't have DNA... we have to rely on the patterns of morphology.

Analysis of bone structure is a complicated process, but it is certainly verifiable and repeatable.

Both false arguments.

All you can prove by morphology is that a vreature with that structure existed.

It doesn't prove it is a transition, it could just be a variant of the original and no transitional at all!

Yes analysis is complicated, but it does not prove mutations made one bone similar in structure to another. It can just show how bones are constructed. All bones are basically calcium with collagen and marrow with all the chemicals involved.

Shemjaza said:
The extinct species were upright and most of them used worked tools... clearly demonstrating your characteristics.

Modern apes also have rudimentary versions of all those traits.

What's the morphological distinction between an "ape" and a "man"?

Yes some ape kind use rudimentary tools, but they do not add to that knwoledge they use sticks but never have progressed.

Chimps can be taught to stack blocks to get to a banana, but they do not pass on that knowledge.

nolidad · Jan 8, 2021

Shemjaza said:
We do have the consistent genetic markers in the non coding DNA of all the living apes and humans demonstrating common lineages.

No it demonstrates that the algorithms produced the answer it was programmed to find!

Basically it goes like this:

A scientist wants to find where two kinds branched off (common ancestor like modern man and ape) so they take their genome- plug it in, tell teh computer with teh algorithm loaded to extrapolate backward to see where the common ancestor would be! It will always produce an answer! But whether that answer is real in the world is the big question, and that cannot be tested, but just simply believed.

Speedwell · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
I have read the rate project report as well as many technical papers.

YOu bigotry against them is noted.

Your bigotry against any and all (including the majority of Christians) who don't agree with your literal interpretation of Genesis is also noted.

nolidad · Jan 8, 2021

pitabread said:
Did you notice how they concluded there are hundreds of millions of years worth of radiation on Earth?

Well I haven't read teh paper in quite awhile. So refresh me as to where that is located.

pitabread said:
It's not bigotry to point out the fact they have prescribed faith tenets that they adhere. It's just the reality. If that bothers you, take it up with them. I didn't tell them to do that.

No I fully acknowledge that. What is hypocritical is that you are whrere you are because you have basic faith tenets that all you were taught istrue!

You haven't redone the the research to conclude evolution by random mutation actually occurred, you accpet the conclusions of those who never saw that happen either!

YOu have prescribed faith tenets that you adhere to. You call them science, they do as well.

did you accept teh BIg Bang /TOE as you were taught or have you redone all teh research to verify the factuality of all the research that happened before and wrote about in journals.

nolidad · Jan 8, 2021

Speedwell said:
Your bigotry against any and all (including the majority of Christians) who don't agree with your literal interpretation of Genesis is also noted.

And your lying about those I disagree with just shows you enter into these discussions with a prepubescent chip.

I disagree with what they believe, but the Christians that hold to divine evolution, are still my brothers though we diverge there.

Sorry to burst yor preconcieved bigoted idea of who I am.

pitabread · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
No it demonstrates that the algorithms produced the answer it was programmed to find!

Basically it goes like this:

A scientist wants to find where two kinds branched off (common ancestor like modern man and ape) so they take their genome- plug it in, tell teh computer with teh algorithm loaded to extrapolate backward to see where the common ancestor would be! It will always produce an answer! But whether that answer is real in the world is the big question, and that cannot be tested, but just simply believed.

This isn't entirely how it works. While it's true that phylogenetic tree production does involve putting information into a computer and generating trees, they can test those trees for statistical congruence.

This is whereby if organisms were not related by any sort of common ancestry, we wouldn't expect congruence when creating trees based on different characteristics, genomic sequences, etc. In fact, I this by creating a phylogenetic tree based on designed objects (cars and trucks) and there was no statistically significant congruence between them at all. Which is what you'd expect from designed objects where characteristics aren't constrained via inheritance.

Yet with living things, we do see statistically congruent patterns. Which does indeed suggest they are related by ancestry.

nolidad · Jan 8, 2021

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I don't know what you mean by a 'secondary cause'; how is it relevant?

Because it adds to the initial cause thus creating a new cause with the expanded output. The cause , no matter how many amplitfiers you attach will not produce more energy (effect) than the sum total of all things producing the energy.

One pound of TNT will produce a blast equal to one pound of TNT, It won't produce a blast equal to 10 pounds unless you add to the original. Then you have to recalculate to find the new total output and that becomes the cause and effect.

nolidad · Jan 8, 2021

pitabread said:
This isn't entirely how it works. While it's true that phylogenetic tree production does involve putting information into a computer and generating trees, they can test those trees for statistical congruence.

This is whereby if organisms were not related by any sort of common ancestry, we wouldn't expect congruence when creating trees based on different characteristics, genomic sequences, etc. In fact, I this by creating a phylogenetic tree based on designed objects (cars and trucks) and there was no statistically significant congruence between them at all. Which is what you'd expect from designed objects where characteristics aren't constrained via inheritance.

Yet with living things, we do see statistically congruent patterns. Which does indeed suggest they are related by ancestry.

Statistics may or may not reflect reality as has been shown many times!

They cannot test teh results against reality to insure that teh statistics and congruences they spat out are actually what happened. Teh answee are merely hypothetical anwers.

Speedwell · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
Well I haven't read teh paper in quite awhile. So refresh me as to where that is located.

No I fully acknowledge that. What is hypocritical is that you are whrere you are because you have basic faith tenets that all you were taught istrue!

You haven't redone the the research to conclude evolution by random mutation actually occurred, you accpet the conclusions of those who never saw that happen either!

YOu have prescribed faith tenets that you adhere to. You call them science, they do as well.

did you accept teh BIg Bang /TOE as you were taught or have you redone all teh research to verify the factuality of all the research that happened before and wrote about in journals.

No, we're not all experts in all of that nor have we done all of the research for ourselves--although some of us here are experts in parts of it and have done relevant research. But the scientific community is open and above-board about all of it and recognizes that their work is subject to review by other scientists and even by interested layman. What possible reason could they have to fake it, anyway? Those few scientists who have tried it for reasons of personal advancement have generally been discovered and denounced by their fellow scientists. Faking it on a large scale involving many scientists would be pointless and impossible. The theory of evolution is plausible, well-evidenced and there is no good reason not to accept it (provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted) until something better comes along.

Speedwell · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
And your lying about those I disagree with just shows you enter into these discussions with a prepubescent chip.

I disagree with what they believe, but the Christians that hold to divine evolution, are still my brothers though we diverge there.

Sorry to burst yor preconcieved bigoted idea of who I am.

I beg your pardon, but you give the distinct impression of being a YEC by arguing against the theory of evolution they way you do.

pitabread · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
Well I haven't read teh paper in quite awhile. So refresh me as to where that is located.

Been awhile since I've read it as well. I do recall the discussion in relation to accelerated decay in order to explain the various isotopes. From what I remember, they put forth the idea that a bunch of radiation was released both during the 'creation' event and during Noah's Flood.

No I fully acknowledge that. What is hypocritical is that you are whrere you are because you have basic faith tenets that all you were taught istrue!

You haven't redone the the research to conclude evolution by random mutation actually occurred, you accpet the conclusions of those who never saw that happen either!

YOu have prescribed faith tenets that you adhere to. You call them science, they do as well.

did you accept teh BIg Bang /TOE as you were taught or have you redone all teh research to verify the factuality of all the research that happened before and wrote about in journals.

You're equivocating over the term "faith" here. What you are describing in the above context is simply trust in the experts of the respective fields. E.g. that their educational qualifications and subsequent research is performed objectively and truthfully, and that there isn't attempts at deliberate subterfuge.

Or to put it more simply: that the world's biologists aren't either collectively incompetent or part of some deliberate conspiracy.

The reason we have experts in such fields is because it's not practical for any individual to do literally everything. Hence why specialists are employed to go out and investigate the natural world/universe and report back what they find. We call those people scientists. And their collective findings include things like the universe being ~13 billion years old, that the Earth is ~4.6 billion years old, and that life shares common ancestry.

Now if you dispute that, perhaps you can go and re-do all their research and see if you get different results.

On top of that, I have taken some science classes at a post-secondary level (including in genetics and evolution) and have done some rudimentary practical hands-on in some areas (e.g. phylogenetic tree reconstruction). This has given me some background to be able to parse published research papers and data.

pitabread · Jan 8, 2021

nolidad said:
They cannot test teh results against reality to insure that teh statistics and congruences they spat out are actually what happened. Teh answee are merely hypothetical anwers.

The tests are based on the respective trees that are created and how improbable it would be for independent trees created from different datasets to converge on a similar output. IOW, it's either highly improbable coincidences or the trees converge because the datasets are related in some manner: e.g. by inheritance.

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

Regular Member

Visit www.DiscoveringGod.net

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency