What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Shemjaza]

If the dating methods are correct. If the guesses about what species they are are correct.

Multiple lines of evidence supporting the same conclusions.

Calling it a guess is a lie.

 

[Frank Robert]

But they are. Unless you can show me a half feline, half canine. Not speculation about one that existed millions of years ago.

Not half and half but a common ancestor that underwent many, many, many short bursts of micro evolution over millions of years and ended in today's modern cats and dogs.

After many years of short micro evolutionary periods we have a prehistoric cat on it's way to the modern cat.

New archaeological discoveries show that cats and dogs previously shared a common ancestor

And after more periods of micro evolution we have

 

[Frank Robert]

Then it had DNA of both?

You are correct. Do you know what DNA can reveal?

Dog and cat DNA studies reveal relationship

To find the biological relationship between animals, scientists study their nucleotides (the microscopic subunits in DNA) to determine their similarities and differences.
​

 

[Astrid]

Not how it works.

We can't show you a half lion half mountain lion, but I doubt you disbelieve in the concept of "cats".



No, the common ancestor diverged in both directions.

We have transitional fossils of ancient creatures that featured rudimentary traits of both... but without the specialisations found in the modern varieties.

This is exactly supported by the genetic evidence of modern populations... the same type DNA tests that show paternity can be used to show that house cats are related to lions and more distantly related to dogs.



You already acknowledged that DNA changes... it's just a matter of building on the initial genetics in two separate ways.

He's an analogy: language.

If you sit down a modern English speaker and a modern German speaker with a 6th century Saxon warrior no one would be able to speak to each other... despite both English and German being derived from the older Germanic language.


I don't think anyone, theist or atheist, will be content with: "There is evidence for a god... but it's a Lovecraftian expression of existential insecurity."

Carnivores fossils are rare. You'd do better with artiodactyls

 

[Speedwell]

If the dating methods are correct. If the guesses about what species they are are correct.

They may be "guesses" to you, but they are "guesses" which align with a lot of evidence. Your "guesses" have no evidence at all.

 

[renniks]

Multiple lines of evidence supporting the same conclusions.

Calling it a guess is a lie.

Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon’s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.

Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.

Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”

 

[Bradskii]

Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon’s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.

Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.

Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”

This is all pretty basic and I would have thought well understood by most people but...

...if you have a single bone and you know what part of the animal it comes from then making the reasonable assumption that the creature was not drastically out of proportion then you'll be able to make a reasonable assumption on it's size.

And different teeth have different purposes. Show a biologist a tooth from a cow and one from a lion and she'll be able to tell you what they probably ate.

And dating the fossils will give a good indication of where the creature might taxanomically fit in with other creatures that have been shown to live at roughly the same time.

This is not rocket surgery. It's not definitive in the sense that you seem to want it to be. But the proposals and the theories always fit with the evidence. Saying that it doesn't match the biblical account doesn't really cut it. You need to counter the evidence with your own proposals and theories.

Fair enough?

 

[SelfSim]

Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.

Or not.

Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”

It seems you are determined to have a loud voice .. yet you have nothing much to say there?

 

[Shemjaza]

Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.

Lie.

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

If I estimate that tree is 30m high because I can see stuff nearby that I know the size of it isn't a guess... and it certainly doesn't make it just as reasonable to agree with someone who claims the tree is a foot high because he really likes that idea.

However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon’s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.

Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.

Not being 100% certain about things is called being honest, not guessing.

Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”

Creationists love to take discussion about which exact family of catlike/doglike animals is the root of the split as portray it as if it sheds doubt on the process.

We have the genetic evidence and the the evidence of the appropriate transitions species and branches in the right time frame... no, we don't know the exact timeline and we likely never will.

 

[sjastro]

Right. They have teeth and a couple ankle bones to go on. Supposedly 55 million years old. That's a lot of guesswork.

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon’s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.

Notice all the guesswork? Now they will write out of conclusion that sounds like they're 100% sure.

Or not.
Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene.”

Warning.....warning ........argument from incredulity alert.

 

[Astrid]

They may be "guesses" to you, but they are "guesses" which align with a lot of evidence. Your "guesses" have no evidence at all.

Fossils don't involve guesses as to species unless maybe all there is is like
a piece of rib or a piece of backbone. Those are called " Leaverights".
(Leave 'er right there, it's unidentifiable)
Limbs, skull and decent pieces of same
are as characteristic and unique as any specialized
machine part.

The uneducated scoffer of course has no clue,
and his world is at risk of shattering if he knew
that a specialist can identify them. An armourer could
look at a sprocket, and say it came from a type vx99 Russian
machine pistol then go get one from the cabinet and say see,
it goes right hete-
That a creo could accept. If a paleontologist did the same
with a phytosaur bone....uh oh, guess work. Don't show me
where it fits on that skeleton, my whole reality will
shatter.
This crap of saying them big "scientists" are just
guessing and assuming is so ignorant
arrogant and obnoxiously stupid you gotta wonder
how people who make up such things
can stand their own stench.

 

[Astrophile]

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

This is an example of an unattached participle. The sentence implies that the scientists were close to a foot long and weighed about a kilogram. It would have been better to write something like, 'Estimated to have been close to a foot in length .... , Dormaalocyon probably lived on a diet etc.'

 

[Astrophile]

Who?

The Abbé Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). However, the theory was developed in more detail by George Gamow (1904-1968), who was an agnostic, and by Steven Weinberg (born 1933), who is an atheist. All this shows is that Big Bang cosmology has nothing to say about the existence of God.

If you're talking about Fred Hoyle, he considered himself an atheist, and promoted panspermia as to how the earth was populated.

Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) did not support Big Bang cosmology; on the contrary, he was a lifelong supporter of the rival Steady State hypothesis.

 

[Speedwell]

The Abbé Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). However, the theory was developed in more detail by George Gamow (1904-1968), who was an agnostic, and by Steven Weinberg (born 1933), who is an atheist. All this shows is that Big Bang cosmology has nothing to say about the existence of God.


Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) did not support Big Bang cosmology; on the contrary, he was a lifelong supporter of the rival Steady State hypothesis.

But I believe he coined the term in an attempt to be derisive.

 

[Bradskii]

The Abbé Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). However, the theory was developed in more detail by George Gamow (1904-1968), who was an agnostic, and by Steven Weinberg (born 1933), who is an atheist. All this shows is that Big Bang cosmology has nothing to say about the existence of God.


Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) did not support Big Bang cosmology; on the contrary, he was a lifelong supporter of the rival Steady State hypothesis.

The term Big Bang actually originated with him. He used it in a sarcastic manner because it refuted the steady state model. As in 'Oh, and I suppose there was this 'big bang' that started it all!' Presumably with air quotes.

Thanks Fred!

 

[Astrid]

This is an example of an unattached participle. The sentence implies that the scientists were close to a foot long and weighed about a kilogram. It would have been better to write something like, 'Estimated to have been close to a foot in length .... , Dormaalocyon probably lived on a diet etc.'

Popular science from yahoo perhaps.

At any rate, the size estimate is reasonable, the
thing wasnt wolf size.
Teeth tell a lot about diet- obviously.
But WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE if it was 50% bigger and
preferred cockroaaches over frogs for food?

Paleontology is all an effort to understand the
vanished worlds buried beneath our feet. A great
deal has been learned and those
with more than a sooty glow of appreciation
for the world they live on like to know things like
that giant salamanders used to crawl through
fern forests where their back yard is now.

Those big amphibians were there, and later they
were gone but strange almost doglike reptiles
were there, much later giant ground sloths and
Sabre tooth cats. And so what if the Sabre tooth
preferred longhorn bison to glyptodons
for dinner.

But the creomind just has to find the
estimated weight of Sabre tooth is a
reason to pooh pooh it all and to
retreat to his secure lil fantasy world
where there's no messy uncertainties.

 

[SelfSim]

Thanks Fred!

I think Fred disliked the idea of fossil fuels (oil) too .. Something about 'a squashed fish ..' was coined by him, IIRC(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well it's doing a very poor job of it. Because every "fact" of science will most likely be modified or found false.

The 'facts' of science are simply our best measurements or observations and our best descriptions of phenomena. They are approximate and provisional; to expect otherwise is simply naive.

People need truth, not uncertainty.

That's your opinion. Truth is a metaphysical abstraction with a number of meanings and interpretations, most commonly, 'correspondence with fact or reality'; but both fact and reality are epistemologically uncertain - and our perception of the world is open to interpretation.

I think what people need is a reasonable degree of confidence in their understanding of the important aspects of their lives, in a world characterised by uncertainty.

 

[Astrid]

The 'facts' of science are simply our best measurements or observations and our best descriptions of phenomena. They are approximate and provisional; to expect otherwise is simply naive.


That's your opinion. Truth is a metaphysical abstraction with a number of meanings and interpretations, most commonly, 'correspondence with fact or reality'; but both fact and reality are epistemologically uncertain - and our perception of the world is open to interpretation.

I think what people need is a reasonable degree of confidence in their understanding of the important aspects of their lives, in a world characterised by uncertainty.

The playback claim that facts in science change is just
ignorant nonsense. Carbon bonds writh oxygen. Ocean currents
circulate. Facts don't change.
Interpretation may change, that is a daily experience for all of
us as we evaluate what we are experiencing and make adjustments.

"People need truth, not uncertainty"

So much to unpack there!

The need for certainty varies tremendously, some thrive
on it, others cower before it and retreat to certainties and
"truths" however illusory they may be.

Of course what people need / want and what reality
gives them...well, the Stones had a song about that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you are back to eternal matter. Only matter isn't eternal now, so you are supposing something outside of science.

Matter is just one form of the 'stuff' of the universe (currently thought to be quantum fields); I'm suggesting that the 'stuff' of the universe might be eternal, negating the need to imagine supernatural creation stories.

That is not 'outside of science', it is quite consistent with physics as currently understood. Many leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists take it seriously.