What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Justaman0000]

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

I don't really have a problem with it.

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.

A step towards macroevolution isn't macroevolution. I get that the argument is that many microevolutionary steps can produce a macroevolution. The problem is that we have always observed that a bird has always remained a bird, a fly always remain a fly (even with forced mutations), and a bipedal hominid will always remain a bipedal hominid. Nothing has been observed, like a pig evolving into a whale. The speciation of animals are such slight changes that it wouldn't allow such things. The environment of the Earth hasn't changed enough to cause such mutations. There isn't any real reason for these mutations to take place, and they haven't been examined throughout the fossil record. Earth's environment has either been hostile and non life supporting, or relatively mild and life supporting. That, along with several worldwide extinction level events wouldn't allow enough time for evolution by natural selection. Only mutation could really produce the results that we are looking for, for macroevolution happen, and most mutations aren't beneficial. From what I've studied, it just isn't all there.

 

[pitabread]

A step towards macroevolution isn't macroevolution. I get that the argument is that many microevolutionary steps can produce a macroevolution. The problem is that we have always observed that a bird has always remained a bird, a fly always remain a fly (even with forced mutations), and a bipedal hominid will always remain a bipedal hominid. Nothing has been observed, like a pig evolving into a whale.

Keep in mind the subsequent offspring are always bound by their ancestry. You'll never get an extant species evolving into a different extant species, because that simply isn't how evolution works. Rather, current extant species (e.g. modern whales and pigs) share a common ancestry, in this particular case going back millions of years.

The speciation of animals are such slight changes that it wouldn't allow such things.

What would prevent it? When we talk about macroevolutionary patterns throughout life's history on Earth, the process of evolution isn't any different at any given step. We're just talking about an accumulation of changes over time.

The environment of the Earth hasn't changed enough to cause such mutations. There isn't any real reason for these mutations to take place, and they haven't been examined throughout the fossil record. Earth's environment has either been hostile and non life supporting, or relatively mild and life supporting. That, along with several worldwide extinction level events wouldn't allow enough time for evolution by natural selection. Only mutation could really produce the results that we are looking for, for macroevolution happen, and most mutations aren't beneficial. From what I've studied, it just isn't all there.

Strictly speaking, mutations are just DNA copying errors. The Earth's environment doesn't "cause" them per se (unless we're talking about mutagens which is a whole different discussion). Rather every organism has certain mutations in its genome (you have a couple dozen novel mutations yourself), some of which are expressed as differences in phenotype. And over time those variations are distributed in populations via process like natural selection and genetic drift.

I also don't understand what you mean by suggesting that extinction events wouldn't allow enough time. Extinction events don't completely eradicate every lifeform. There species that survive and go on to re-populate the Earth. If anything extinction events provide for more accelerated evolutionary changes because the selective pressures are more dramatically increased.

 

[Ophiolite]

A step towards macroevolution isn't macroevolution.

Of course it isn't. Macroevolution is a process consisting of many steps. Speciation is a major step in that process. Mutiple sequential speciation events constitute macroevolution.

The problem is that we have always observed that a bird has always remained a bird, a fly always remain a fly

Of course we have. It would take millions of years for a bird to become something else. Why would you expect to observe such a change? Either you are grossly ignorant of evolutionary theory, or you are trying to mislead. (In either case it calls into question your right to be pontificating on the subject.)

The speciation of animals are such slight changes that it wouldn't allow such things.

An argument from ignorance is just that: a display of ignorance.

The environment of the Earth hasn't changed enough to cause such mutations.

Mutations occur naturally. The environment has gone through more than enough changes and already has such a diversity that there are always challenging niches that suit chance mutations that arise to creatures within them.

Earth's environment has either been hostile and non life supporting, or relatively mild and life supporting

Nonsense. It seems you also don't understand ecology, or the diversity of environments. Nor the extent to which macroevolution has enabled life to take advantage of that diversity.

That, along with several worldwide extinction level events wouldn't allow enough time for evolution by natural selection.

Argument from Incredulity.

I'll give you the same advice I've given others. Go away. Study biology in depth for three or four years. Come back and argue your case then. Otherwise you'll just continue to be an embarrassment to the Creationist corner.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't really have a problem with it.

Then why are you arguing against it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Yeah... no-one said anything about the amount of energy; just the size of the cause relative to the size of the effect.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

Completely irrelevant to the point.

The possibility of intermediate phases is what is demonstrated by the point.

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.

The point is that the particular growth structure is only consistent with the cetacean family of animals.

You can also add transitional fossil to the terms you have been misinformed about. Transitional form does not imply direct ancestry, merely the demonstration of animals with traits of related groups.

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.

You are ignoring all the other "apes" with evidence of community, tool construction and eventually even spirituality and art.

Homo habilis would have looked like a furry little ape man, but they used shaped stone tools.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

Ridiculous.

Do you also deny the ability to demonstrate ancestry? Do you deny paternity tests?

 

[tas8831]

Well God did create individual organisms.

Nope.

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 do not believe this. In large part, because I have performed such analyses and know that you cannot really do what you imply.
I suspect you are referring to what creationist Jeff Tomkins actually did (rigged an analysis to get a creation-friendly result) with what actual researchers do.

 

[tas8831]

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.

I own several creationist books. Several volumes of creation 'science' journals. I have read probably a hundred 'technical' papers by creationists. About 90% consist of attacks on evolution/evolutionists and are not testing anything.
The few that could be considered actual science are generally fluff - like the Baraminology (creationist taxonomy) papers that, upon realizing that objective data (like DNA/protein/morphological data) does not give them the results they really wanted, they employ utterly irrelevant nonsense like whether or not critters make their own dwellings, population density, percent monogamy, etc.
Then we have the 'real' science types that try to use genetics and such to 'destroy' evolution (again, NOT testing their own hypotheses) - they get caught fudging quite a bit.

 

[Astrid]

I don't really have a problem with it.


A step towards macroevolution isn't macroevolution. I get that the argument is that many microevolutionary steps can produce a macroevolution. The problem is that we have always observed that a bird has always remained a bird, a fly always remain a fly (even with forced mutations), and a bipedal hominid will always remain a bipedal hominid. Nothing has been observed, like a pig evolving into a whale. The speciation of animals are such slight changes that it wouldn't allow such things. The environment of the Earth hasn't changed enough to cause such mutations. There isn't any real reason for these mutations to take place, and they haven't been examined throughout the fossil record. Earth's environment has either been hostile and non life supporting, or relatively mild and life supporting. That, along with several worldwide extinction level events wouldn't allow enough time for evolution by natural selection. Only mutation could really produce the results that we are looking for, for macroevolution happen, and most mutations aren't beneficial. From what I've studied, it just isn't all there.

If you've studied you would know it is "disprove",
not " falsify".

You would also know that if one is to
disprove a theory, a contrary, fact or
two is needed.
And you would know nobody has ever
found any contrary facts.

You put up a gish gallop of falsehoods,
opinions, and irrelevance.

You cannot put up ONE contrary fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the falsification for abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

History.

 

[VirOptimus]

History.

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

History = His story.

 

[dlamberth]

History = His story.

Found in the Earth and it's History.

 

[AV1611VET]

Found in the Earth and it's History.

It better align with what is written in the Bible too, or it can take a hike.

God's dual revelation (Bible & Nature) should not be contradictory.

My favorite Psalm is Psalm 19.

Vss 1-6 speak of God's general revelation through nature, and vss 7-14 speak of His special revelation through the Bible.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

 

[dlamberth]

It better align with what is written in the Bible too, or it can take a hike.

God's dual revelation (Bible & Nature) should not be contradictory.

It need not be. But it's sure has become so.

My favorite Psalm is Psalm 19.

Vss 1-6 speak of God's general revelation through nature, and vss 7-14 speak of His special revelation through the Bible.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

It's a real blessing to be able to see the Light of God within nature and Creation!
So much gratitude!

 

[AV1611VET]

It need not be. But it's sure has become so.

That's because tares have been sown into the Creation Story.

It's a real blessing to be able to see the Light of God within nature and Creation!

And an equal blessing to be able to compare it with Scripture to make sure you're getting the right interpretation.

QV how range lights work:

Two lights are positioned near one another. One, called the front light, is lower than the one behind, which is called the rear light. At night when viewed from a ship, the two lights only become aligned vertically when a vessel is positioned on the correct bearing. If the vessel is on an incorrect course, the lights will not align.

SOURCE

The Bible and Nature are like range lights.

 

[Frank Robert]

...my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

God (religion) has not been systematically eliminated from science, religion never was part of science. God's realm is the supernatural while science's realm is the natural world. Science and religion are not in conflict because they address different aspects of our lives.

Abiogensis is not a theory, scientists have proposed several plausible hypotheses but its possible mechanisms are poorly understood.

Finding "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" is usual response to rebut claims that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable by empirical evidence.

See: Could the Big Bang Be Wrong?

 

[SelfSim]

Abiogensis is not a theory, scientists have proposed several plausible hypotheses but its possible mechanisms are poorly understood.

I think its 'possible mechanisms' are pretty well understood.
Instances of the conditions which might faciliate those mechanisms on a wide scale, are yet to be found beyond earth's.

 

[Occams Barber]

History = His story.

Not really

history (n.)

late 14c., "relation of incidents" (true or false), from Old French estoire, estorie "story; chronicle, history" (12c., Modern French histoire), from Latin historia "narrative of past events, account, tale, story," from Greek historia "a learning or knowing by inquiry; an account of one's inquiries; knowledge, account, historical account, record, narrative," from historein "be witness or expert; give testimony, recount; find out, search, inquire," and histōr "knowing, expert; witness," both ultimately from PIE *wid-tor-, from root *weid- "to see," hence "to know."

It is thus related to Greek idein "to see," and to eidenai "to know."
history | Search Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com)
OB​