What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Astrid]

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.

And the core of it all is possibly mathematical, which surely is as
disconnected from time and space as anything real could be.

 

[AV1611VET]

Facts don't change.

So is it a fact that Pluto is our ninth planet? or did that change?

 

[Speedwell]

So is it a fact that Pluto is our ninth planet? or did that change?

It never was a scientific fact, just a label.

 

[Astrid]

It never was a scientific fact, just a label.

There was this tiny speck of light an immense distance away.
It was amazing work to even find it.
With the very limited info it was believed it was most likely
a planet.
A tiny bird in a blurry photo might be a phoebe instead of a titmouse.
A responsible researcher won't call "fact" ever.

Pop press just said "planet". "Fact".

So blame the scientists and say science is worthless.

 

[AV1611VET]

It never was a scientific fact, just a label.

Was it ... or was it not a fact, scientific or otherwise, that at one time, Pluto was our ninth planet?

If you were grading a science paper in, say, 2004, and a student failed to mention Pluto, would you not consider that a mistake?

 

[AV1611VET]

With the very limited info it was believed it was most likely a planet.

"Most likely"?

Sounds like science is trying to burn its bridges.

Pop press just said "planet". "Fact".

So blame the scientists and say science is worthless.

Did the pop press send the Aricebo message into space, depicting our solar system with nine planets?

 

[Speedwell]

Was it ... or was it not a fact, scientific or otherwise, that at one time, Pluto was our ninth planet?

No. It was always just a label. Facts about Pluto are things like mass, diameter, orbital radius, things like that. None of that changed when the label changed.

If you were grading a science paper in, say, 2004, and a student failed to mention Pluto, would you not consider that a mistake?

Probably, if I was a public school teacher with their typical ignorance of science and I was looking for something simple and sciencey to make kids memorize and pass a test on.

 

[Frank Robert]

If the dating methods are correct.

The dating methods are correct, the only people who do not accept the evidence are those who have a vested interests like a religious belief in a young earth. Science has method and supporting data, religion has apologetic. Which one is a guess and which one isn't?

If the guesses about what species they are are correct.

Once again the only people calling them guesses are those who have vested interests like AIG, DI, and ICR that do apologetics and zero science.

 

[Speedwell]

"Most likely"?

Sounds like science is trying to burn its bridges.Did the pop press send the Aricebo message into space, depicting our solar system with nine planets?

It depicted our solar system, including Pluto. The label "planet" was not attached.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. It was always just a label. Facts about Pluto are things like mass, diameter, orbital radius, things like that. None of that changed when the label changed.


Probably, if I was a public school teacher with their typical ignorance of science and I was looking for something simple and sciencey to make kids memorize and pass a test on.

We're done, Speedwell.

 

[Frank Robert]

People need truth, not uncertainty.

There are likely 1000s of Biblical interpretations. Which one is true?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are likely 1000s of Biblical interpretations. Which one is true?

Well, for a start, any interpretation that pwns agnosticism.

 

[tas8831]

No more silly than someone claiming to know what animals were around 64 million years ago

Yes, it is much more silly.
We know this due to many pieces of corroborating evidence.
I note that you have studiously ignored the references I have provided, and instead chose to whine about the diagram Speedwell provided.
I suspect that you arguing well above your station.

 

[tas8831]

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

"Guesses"?

Oh my...

 

[renniks]

.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.

Yeah, because if you have a cow bone or a lion bone you also have something to compare it with. A full lion or full cow skeleton, and you know what the fur and other features are exactly because you have live animals to compare to. Big difference.

 

[tas8831]

Notice all the guesswork?

So you are swayed by certainty? You think using tentative language indicates mere "guesses"?

How creationist of you.

You will ignore this as is your apparent primary antic, but here goes:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

 

[Speedwell]

We're done, Speedwell.

Don't blame me. It's not my fault that your Pluto argument is so lame.

 

[tas8831]

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.

I love it when creationists unwittingly expose their nearly complete lack of relevant knowledge and understanding.

 

[tas8831]

Yeah, because if you have a cow bone or a lion bone you also have something to compare it with. A full lion or full cow skeleton, and you know what the fur and other features are exactly because you have live animals to compare to. Big difference.

You've never taken a comparative anatomy class, I take it? Or any class?

 

[Frank Robert]

Well, for a start, any interpretation that pwns agnosticism.

Agnosticism simply means I don't know which does not exclude feelings of awe. That probably makes me an enchanted agnostic.