What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[VirOptimus]

Then it means there isn't any falsification for abiogenesis and ToE which makes them bogus theories.

The fact that they havent been falsified doesnt mean that they theoreticly cant be.

It means that the ToE most certainly is mainly correct however.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then it means there isn't any falsification for abiogenesis and ToE which makes them bogus theories.

No, it makes them very likely to be true, since no one has falsified them.

Unfalsified is very different from unfalsifiable.

 

[sjastro]

As has already been mentioned, there are now some 400-odd specimens of Australopithecus afarensis alone, so the idea of 'Lucy' being a fraud was put to bed long ago.

The Republicans have found another 400 illegal votes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Animals can think, but are limited.

I know. I've had conversations with some of them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why should I accept lies like you have? I am not foolish. Bears are more bipedal that apes because they can stay bipedal longer. The fact that apes cannot be bipedal today shows evolution is bogus.

Bears can't stay bipedal longer than apes can. Bears are quadruped animals that only get on their back legs in times of stress or when they investigate something. I have shown you video footage of apes standing and walking on two legs. It's not a novel phenomenon for apes.

The only one being foolish here is definitely you, and you are being foolish in such a prideful way that its laughably sad.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's the false dichotomy.

No, a false dichotomy would be "cookie or soft drink", because, unless it's a snack table with only those two items and you can only have one, there are foods (and non-foods) that are neither cookies, nor soft drinks.

Intelligent v. non-intelligent is mostly a dichotomy. My original statement was to the effect that there is a continuum of characteristics on the "intelligence" spectrum and thus even that might not be a continuum.

 

[Brightmoon]

That isn't what is presented in the argument for Lucy. We found that Lucy is a fraud.

"The science of finding and identifying man’s “prehistoric ancestors” runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day. The latest discovery is “Lucy.”

If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“1

This is still an exaggeration since it concedes that various specimens are part of human evolution. Australopithecines, for example, are not considered transitional forms anymore, but a branch of the primate evolutionary tree. True transitional forms are still missing. (“Transitional forms” refer to those creatures which represent intermediate states of development for a supposed ape-like ancestor down to man.)

But what about Lucy? This most recent discovery in Africa is being heralded by many as a true transitional form, typically a replacement for the outmoded australopithecines. Could this be hasty judgment? Let’s examine the evidence. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr. Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered.

The age is “estimated” to be 3.2 million years. The find includes a V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with very little skull fragments.2 There were other finds at the same location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.

What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws.

And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.3

Does this make her an upright walker? Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers. Some experts argue that the higher angle makes her a better climber.4 This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction rather than clear scientific thinking.

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that “similar structures nearly always have similar plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints.” After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: “If you don’t believe homology, then you don’t believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!“5

What about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of Lucy’s bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic scenario – such as a world wide flood?

What about Dr. Johanson’s credibility? To his credit, he does talk about the tentative nature of this type of science. But another evolutionary writer says this about the search for humanlike (homonid) bones; “When it comes to finding a new ‘star’ as our animal ancestor, there is no business like bone business.“6

Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture puts it this way, “By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be paid an honorarium.“7 Regardless of the motives involved for finding our evolutionary “ancestor”, we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with another knee-jerk explanation."

Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link — The Forerunner

. Are you seriously mentioning Lucy’s knee . Lolollolololol!!!! That’s Lucy’s knee only if she had 3 legs . Go take a long look at Lucy’s leg bones . It’s impossible that that’s her actual knee. Well that ignorant bit of information calls into question your source of this nonsensical crap

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, I do. God created mosaic organisms like platypus, pronghorn, and red panda. What do you have?

I what ways are (all three) of these "mosaic organisms"? I'd like to know.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I caught you in a lie, a big one -- Definition of HUMAN

Did you even read past the beginning of what you thought you were quoting?

human
noun
Definition of human (Entry 2 of 2)

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person : MAN sense 1c —usually plural

 

[Brightmoon]

No, a false dichotomy would be "cookie or soft drink", because, unless it's a snack table with only those two items and you can only have one, there are foods (and non-foods) that are neither cookies, nor soft drinks.

Intelligent v. non-intelligent is mostly a dichotomy. My original statement was to the effect that there is a continuum of characteristics on the "intelligence" spectrum and thus even that might not be a continuum.

intelligence is a gradual scale in primates . A Gorilla named Michael told researchers how his mother was killed

 

[Hans Blaster]

Humans are bipedal, humans are apes.

So you are wrong.

Hey! That's a proper deductive argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I like how the sole 'attempts' at falsifying evolution have been:
Appeals to a deity
Incredulity
And just flat out refusal to accept science or even basic evidence.

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Physical & Life Sciences to Creation & Evolution.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Brightmoon]

Sure, I do. God created mosaic organisms like platypus, pronghorn, and red panda. What do you have?

you have no idea what a mosaic trait is do you? Archaeopteryx is a animal with mosaic traits . Tiktaalik also. It’s an animal with traits of an ancestor and also has more modern traits . Tiktaalik has the scapula detached from the back of the skullroof like a tetrapod ( which is a fancy way of saying that it has a rudimentary neck ) and it’s front limbs have a wrist so it walked on the bottom of shallow water . Fish don’t have necks .Archaeopteryx had both bird and ancestral reptile traits as well. It had gastralia which is a reptilian trait not a bird trait. Modern platypus lay soft shelled eggs and the males have poison spurs Which are reptilomorph traits .

 

[SelfSim]

The entire concept of seeking falsification for abiogenesis leads to the nonsensical notion that the organic processes we observe in life, must also be falsifiable, in spite of the fact that they are readily observable, (along with the inorganic compound constituents of bio-chemistry).

The only unknowns in abiogenesis are the minimum timeframes and the specific external conditions (or tolerence levels) required before the molecular self replication process can take place, beyond Earth's specific instance of life.

Seeking falsification of the concept of abiogenesis, simply because one believes that falsification is required to restore scientific credibility of what is already blatantly observable, is as much a total waste of time as anything else I can (personally) imagine.

Also, the idea that the wave of some magic wand speeds up that process, or reveals some long-imagined believed-in 'truths' about the universe, has nothing to do with the scientific principle of abiogenesis and therefore renders the enquiry about its falsification completely moot and therefore, a totally useless exercise.

 

[jamesbond007]

you have no idea what a mosaic trait is do you? Archaeopteryx is a animal with mosaic traits . Tiktaalik also. It’s an animal with traits of an ancestor and also has more modern traits . Tiktaalik has the scapula detached from the back of the skullroof like a tetrapod ( which is a fancy way of saying that it has a rudimentary neck ) and it’s front limbs have a wrist so it walked on the bottom of shallow water . Fish don’t have necks .Archaeopteryx had both bird and ancestral reptile traits as well. It had gastralia which is a reptilian trait not a bird trait. Modern platypus lay soft shelled eggs and the males have poison spurs Which are reptilomorph traits .

I'm not a mind reader when you don't explain. Instead of insulting me, why don't you explain your argument. There seems to be no point to your argument, but make up stuff to explain ToE. It seems I struck a nerve in atheists with where's the falsification for abiogenesis and ToE and they cannot present anything to back it up. You certainly don't answer my question.

 

[jamesbond007]

I like how the sole 'attempts' at falsifying evolution have been:
Appeals to a deity
Incredulity
And just flat out refusal to accept science or even basic evidence.

No, for a theory to be valid one has to explain how it could be falsified. For example, the Bible and God could be falsified by showing contradictions in the work and God. With creation cosmology, it would be debunk Kalam's Cosmological Argument. From what JBS Haldane said, it could be construed to mean showing a fossil that is out of sequence in the same time layer. Richard Dawkins said the same when he said he would add a hippo in the Precambrian.

The Bible does falsify ToE and abiogenesis, but creation scientists aren't allowed in Nature and Science nor peer reviews. That's just wrong.

Thus, it's your side that flat out refuses to accept science or even basic evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, for a theory to be valid one has to explain how it could be falsified. For example, the Bible and God could be falsified by showing contradictions in the work and God. With creation cosmology, it would be debunk Kalam's Cosmological Argument. From what JBS Haldane said, it could be construed to mean showing a fossil that is out of sequence in the same time layer. Richard Dawkins said the same when he said he would add a hippo in the Precambrian.

The Bible does falsify ToE and abiogenesis, but creation scientists aren't allowed in Nature and Science nor peer reviews. That's just wrong.

Thus, it's your side that flat out refuses to accept science or even basic evidence.

Again:
Appeals to a deity
Incredulity
And just flat out refusal to accept science or even basic evidence.

That's all you have and all you ever will have. You don't even TRY and use any actual science to even TRY and show any attempt at falsifying evolution or abiogenesis (the latter of which is not a scientific theory on a par with the theory of evolution btw).

 

[pitabread]

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.

How do you propose to scientifically test God and/or the supernatural? If you want to make a claim that science can actually test the supernatural, then explain how that can possibly be done.

Otherwise the supernatural will continue to have no part in science. All the creationist whining in the world won't change that.

 

[pitabread]

The Bible does falsify ToE and abiogenesis, but creation scientists aren't allowed in Nature and Science nor peer reviews. That's just wrong.

The Bible doesn't falsify the evolution or abiogenesis any more than Star Wars falsifies physics.