What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Shemjaza]

There is a reason why theistic evolution exists, its because God making all things even through evolution is not compatible with 'standard' evolution. If it were scientists would discover that the process of evolution is not enough and there may be something else at play here.

God isn't needed to explain rocks falling off a cliff either, the theory of gravity works just fine... that doesn't stop Christians from believing that God is still in control of the universe.

 

[nolidad]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, 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.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, 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.

With all due respect to the scientists, if something is true and factual, it cannot be falsified!

TOE in the Darwinian sense (from microbes to man over c. 1 billion years) is untestable unobservable, and unrepeatable. This makes it a "philosophy of science" versus empirical science.

No one has ever seen the kind of slow gene to gene change evolution says took place over millions of years to take for example, a land mammal and evolve it to a whale.

Genetics have shown that over 99.94% of all mutations fall on the side of near benign to harmful. Mutations then are hard to be the physical driver of evolution if they are always harmful to some extent and as the former chair of Harvard Genetics once said- reduce the overall viability of a population.

Most "mutations" can be attributed to variation within a "kind" or pre existing information turning on or off or a simple reshuffling of information. These are all horizontal for evolutionary and not the constant advancement. It is simply another variant of the same kind

Now the way God created each Kind and instructed it can be tested, repeated and observed.

God said let each reproduce after its own kind! And all tested, observed and repeated experiments have shown this to be true! A classic example is the century long experimenting with fruit flies to "evolve" them.

They bombarded them with radiation and all sorts of mutagens in the hopes of accelerating evolution. they produced some really grotesques offspring with many that survived the bombardments. The amazing thing is that of those that survived, and were able to reproduce viable offspring- reproduced normal fruit flies! None of the mutations that occured in the first generation offspring of the bombarded ones. Each producing after its own kind. No new genres, no things that were not genetically fruit flies etc.

Hope this helps.

 

[VirOptimus]

With all due respect to the scientists, if something is true and factual, it cannot be falsified!

TOE in the Darwinian sense (from microbes to man over c. 1 billion years) is untestable unobservable, and unrepeatable. This makes it a "philosophy of science" versus empirical science.

No one has ever seen the kind of slow gene to gene change evolution says took place over millions of years to take for example, a land mammal and evolve it to a whale.

Genetics have shown that over 99.94% of all mutations fall on the side of near benign to harmful. Mutations then are hard to be the physical driver of evolution if they are always harmful to some extent and as the former chair of Harvard Genetics once said- reduce the overall viability of a population.

Most "mutations" can be attributed to variation within a "kind" or pre existing information turning on or off or a simple reshuffling of information. These are all horizontal for evolutionary and not the constant advancement. It is simply another variant of the same kind

Now the way God created each Kind and instructed it can be tested, repeated and observed.

God said let each reproduce after its own kind! And all tested, observed and repeated experiments have shown this to be true! A classic example is the century long experimenting with fruit flies to "evolve" them.

They bombarded them with radiation and all sorts of mutagens in the hopes of accelerating evolution. they produced some really grotesques offspring with many that survived the bombardments. The amazing thing is that of those that survived, and were able to reproduce viable offspring- reproduced normal fruit flies! None of the mutations that occured in the first generation offspring of the bombarded ones. Each producing after its own kind. No new genres, no things that were not genetically fruit flies etc.

Hope this helps.

Congratulstion, everything in the post is in error!

Quite a feat.

 

[driewerf]

Congratulstion, everything in the post is in error!

Quite a feat.

Let us test this

 

[Brightmoon]

The TOE Theory of Everything is a physics theory not a biological one. If you mean evolution, say so . Evolution is a process and it’s certainly repeatable , if it weren’t ,then we wouldn’t have the agricultural and animal husbandry varieties we have now . To put it in your terms Nolidad , animals and plants don’t always reproduce after their own kind. They form new kinds (varieties)and occasionally new species.

 

[nolidad]

Congratulstion, everything in the post is in error!

Quite a feat.

Says the evolutionist! But demostrate one supposed line of evolution by its mutations.

Fossils are of no use for they are too many variables that cannot be tested and known!

And saying it is wrong is one thing- demonstrating it is another!

Remember mutations have to be random, unplanned, advance macro evolution ( creationists recognize what is known as micro evolution but call it simple variation).

Even natural selection hypotheses are fraught with all sorts of insurmountable problems.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Congratulstion, everything in the post is in error!

Quite a feat.

Quite a feat indeed. (And he manage to double down by repeating his performance. 10/10.)

 

[VirOptimus]

Says the evolutionist! But demostrate one supposed line of evolution by its mutations.

Fossils are of no use for they are too many variables that cannot be tested and known!

And saying it is wrong is one thing- demonstrating it is another!

Remember mutations have to be random, unplanned, advance macro evolution ( creationists recognize what is known as micro evolution but call it simple variation).

Even natural selection hypotheses are fraught with all sorts of insurmountable problems.

... this didnt help your post.

 

[driewerf]

I am still working on it, but I found something right in post 462.

 

[Belk]

Says the evolutionist! But demostrate one supposed line of evolution by its mutations.

Fossils are of no use for they are too many variables that cannot be tested and known!

And saying it is wrong is one thing- demonstrating it is another!

Remember mutations have to be random, unplanned, advance macro evolution ( creationists recognize what is known as micro evolution but call it simple variation).

Even natural selection hypotheses are fraught with all sorts of insurmountable problems.

I have a better idea. Explain to us why we should ignore 150 years of scientific advancement using the theory as a cornerstone? Actual biologists say nothing in biology would make sense without it so why should we need to prove the past 150 years of advancement are correct? If you want to overturn the theory then you need to do the hard work of showing it to be wrong and propose a better theory the explains all the observations we have made. Good luck.

 

[driewerf]

With all due respect to the scientists, if something is true and factual, it cannot be falsified!

Wrong. To try to falsify a hypothesis is exactly how hypotheses are tested. The more a theory can be shown wrong in a test and the more often a hypothesis or theory survives such a test the more confident scientists become.
Unfalisfiability is the feature of pseudosciences like creationism.

TOE in the Darwinian sense (from microbes to man over c. 1 billion years)

Wrong. The “ToE in the Darwinian sense” has no goal in mind. Not humans, not cockroaches, no goal.

is untestable unobservable, and unrepeatable.

Wrong. The ToE has been thoroughly observed and tested. Here are some links to papers and articles of experimental, empirical evidence for the ToE.

https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(12)00142-5

Microbial Experimental Evolution – a proving ground for evolutionary theory and a tool for discovery

Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes

This makes it a "philosophy of science" versus empirical science.

Wrong. Philosophy of science is (partly) epistemology.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

No one has ever seen the kind of slow gene to gene change evolution says took place over millions of years to take for example, a land mammal and evolve it to a whale.

Wrong. Instances of evolution, genetic fixation of mutations in populations have been observed. It’s even on Youtube.

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Genetics have shown that over 99.94% of all mutations fall on the side of near benign to harmful.

It’s amazing. Something right. I doubt the figure of 99.94%, but basically indeed, the majority of mutation is neutral.

Mutations then are hard to be the physical driver of evolution if they are always harmful to some extent and as the former chair of Harvard Genetics once said- reduce the overall viability of a population.

Wrong. Since evolution is variation that get fixed in the gene pool of a population.

Most "mutations" can be attributed to variation within a "kind" or pre existing information turning on or off or a simple reshuffling of information.

Wrong. Or rather meaningless. Since it is mutations that cause the variation. And mutations can’t be pre-existing information since they are complete novel features not traceable to any parent.

These are all horizontal for evolutionary

Uh? No, since they are passed from a parent generation to offspring. So wrong thus.

and not the constant advancement.

Well, right. Since we agreed that there are neutral mutations.

It is simply another variant of the same kind

Wrong, since kind has never been defined.

But right, it is a new variation in a population.

Now the way God created each Kind and instructed it can be tested, repeated and observed.

O, really?

I want to test the creation

I want to repeat the creation and

I want to observe the creation.

And wait, didn’t you said tha true things are unfalsifiable? If the creation can be tested, can be falsified, it’s untrue, per your own words. (I disagreed then, I still disagree now, It’s just too funny to let it pass.)

God said let each reproduce after its own kind! And all tested, observed and repeated experiments have shown this to be true! A classic example is the century long experimenting with fruit flies to "evolve" them.

Ring species disagree.

They bombarded them with radiation and all sorts of mutagens in the hopes of accelerating evolution. they produced some really grotesques offspring with many that survived the bombardments. The amazing thing is that of those that survived, and were able to reproduce viable offspring- reproduced normal fruit flies! None of the mutations that occured in the first generation offspring of the bombarded ones. Each producing after its own kind. No new genres, no things that were not genetically fruit flies etc.

Of course no reference or nothing.
So we are at the end of post nr 462.

Vir optimus, I am sorry but I found some things right. Kind of, at least.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With all due respect to the scientists, if something is true and factual, it cannot be falsified!

The problem here is that, in general, we can't be certain of truth or factuality outside of mathematics and logic. Things that people thought were factual and true are constantly being shown not to be.
E.T.A. Your beliefs about evolution, for example.

Hope this helps.

It certainly helps to demonstrate your gaping lack of knowledge and understanding of evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

With all due respect to the scientists,

And yet somehow I don't feel respected...

 

[Ophiolite]

Fossils are of no use for they are too many variables that cannot be tested and known!

I'll bite. Which are these variables that cannot be tested and why are they important? Just mention the two that seem most important to you. It would be helpful if you chose ones relating to the brachiopoda, but if you prefer to offer general ones, or to focus on another clade, go ahead.

 

[VirOptimus]

Wrong. To try to falsify a hypothesis is exactly how hypotheses are tested. The more a theory can be shown wrong in a test and the more often a hypothesis or theory survives such a test the more confident scientists become.
Unfalisfiability is the feature of pseudosciences like creationism.

Wrong. The “ToE in the Darwinian sense” has no goal in mind. Not humans, not cockroaches, no goal.

Wrong. The ToE has been thoroughly observed and tested. Here are some links to papers and articles of experimental, empirical evidence for the ToE.

https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(12)00142-5

Microbial Experimental Evolution – a proving ground for evolutionary theory and a tool for discovery

Spatiotemporal microbial evolution on antibiotic landscapes



Wrong. Philosophy of science is (partly) epistemology.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Wrong. Instances of evolution, genetic fixation of mutations in populations have been observed. It’s even on Youtube.

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

It’s amazing. Something right. I doubt the figure of 99.94%, but basically indeed, the majority of mutation is neutral.

Wrong. Since evolution is variation that get fixed in the gene pool of a population.

Wrong. Or rather meaningless. Since it is mutations that cause the variation. And mutations can’t be pre-existing information since they are complete novel features not traceable to any parent.

Uh? No, since they are passed from a parent generation to offspring. So wrong thus.

Well, right. Since we agreed that there are neutral mutations.

Wrong, since kind has never been defined.

But right, it is a new variation in a population.


O, really?

I want to test the creation

I want to repeat the creation and

I want to observe the creation.

And wait, didn’t you said tha true things are unfalsifiable? If the creation can be tested, can be falsified, it’s untrue, per your own words. (I disagreed then, I still disagree now, It’s just too funny to let it pass.)


Ring species disagree.

Of course no reference or nothing.
So we are at the end of post nr 462.

Vir optimus, I am sorry but I found some things right. Kind of, at least.

I stand corrected! (And in awe. )

 

[pitabread]

Remember mutations have to be random, unplanned, advance macro evolution

What is this sentence even trying to say?

 

[Ophiolite]

What is this sentence even trying to say?

Could it be this? "Mutations have to be random, unplanned (no end goal), yet at the same time they must advance macro evolution."

If so, it should be accompanied with a note on the sub text, which I suggest might be this: "I don't properly understand the role of mutations in evolution and I am deeply confused over the nature and relevance of macro evolution."

Perhaps, if @nolidad returns from his sabbatical, he can clarify both his message and his sub-text.

 

[Gene2memE]

With all due respect to the scientists, if something is true and factual, it cannot be falsified!

TOE in the Darwinian sense (from microbes to man over c. 1 billion years) is untestable unobservable, and unrepeatable.

It's both testable and observable, although the observation is second hand only (fossils and DNA evidence, for instance).

Here's a test - find me a vertebrate that's a billion years old.

This makes it a "philosophy of science" versus empirical science.

This is a false dichotomy.

No one has ever seen the kind of slow gene to gene change evolution says took place over millions of years to take for example, a land mammal and evolve it to a whale.

No one has ever seen Pluto complete an orbit of the sun. Does that mean it doesn't?

Genetics have shown that over 99.94% of all mutations fall on the side of near benign to harmful.

Even going by your numbers - which I don't accept as mutation rates and types of mutation vary wildly between species - 0.06% of mutations are beneficial.

Mutations then are hard to be the physical driver of evolution if they are always harmful to some extent and as the former chair of Harvard Genetics once said- reduce the overall viability of a population.

But, they're not always harmful. The vast majority of them are neutral. Those are typically discarded, as they have a negative impact on fitness. But beneficial mutations are conserved, as they have a positive impact on fitness.

Most "mutations" can be attributed to variation within a "kind" or pre existing information turning on or off or a simple reshuffling of information. These are all horizontal for evolutionary and not the constant advancement. It is simply another variant of the same kind.

Now, extrapolate further. What happens when the "kind" continues to collect beneficial mutations that differentiate it from ancestral populations? And then those subsequent populations continue to collect beneficial mutations?

What is the mechanism that prevents one "kind" from evolving from a parent "kind"?

God said let each reproduce after its own kind! And all tested, observed and repeated experiments have shown this to be true! A classic example is the century long experimenting with fruit flies to "evolve" them.

They bombarded them with radiation and all sorts of mutagens in the hopes of accelerating evolution. they produced some really grotesques offspring with many that survived the bombardments. The amazing thing is that of those that survived, and were able to reproduce viable offspring- reproduced normal fruit flies! None of the mutations that occured in the first generation offspring of the bombarded ones. Each producing after its own kind. No new genres, no things that were not genetically fruit flies etc.

Hope this helps.

You do realise that multiple new species of fruit fly (Drosophila) have been produced in experiments, don't you? It's been done in the lab for more than 70 years.

Oh, and your descriptions of the speciation experiments are hilariously wrong. Mostly they were achieved via simple reproductive isolation or hybridisation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here's a test - find me a vertebrate that's a billion years old.

That would be a tough one. You would have to put your back into it.

 

[driewerf]

There is a reason why theistic evolution exists, its because God making all things even through evolution is not compatible with 'standard' evolution. If it were scientists would discover that the process of evolution is not enough and there may be something else at play here.

No, it is because scientifically literate christians need to distinguish themselves from the ignorant, science denying christians. Kind like moderate muslims need to distance themselves from the Taliban or ISIS.