What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Brightmoon]

Our intellect is superior? Given some of the idiocy I see on CF and generally on the Internet, I’m not so sure about that . Animals wouldn’t kill each other over religious beliefs , or worry about homophobia in others, for example . Whales might be almost our intellectual equals, it’s just that we have hands to make things .

if you’d seen Koko the gorilla tell Fred Rogers that she loved him in sign language and give him a hug. She’d only seen him on TV . I’ll see if I can find the clip.

 

[NBB]

I really don't think random change can build a body, and you can't refute random change is what builds, The little change that passes natural selection over the other thousands or millions i don't know of changes that don't, are being built by random change, that this builds brains that are connected to the whole body in a design fashion should not be possible.

Also we have a soul that works with our bodies, so i don't care what evolutionist say, God intended us to be the exactly the way he thought and planned, even if evolution is true in that we came from lesser beings, our very person and what makes us people comes from God himself and this part of our being is closely working with our bodies so its fair to think God planned how our bodies will work too.

 

[NBB]

Our intellect is superior? Given some of the idiocy I see on CF and generally on the Internet, I’m not so sure about that . Animals wouldn’t kill each other over religious beliefs , or worry about homophobia in others, for example . Whales might be almost our intellectual equals, it’s just that we have hands to make things .

if you’d seen Koko the gorilla tell Fred Rogers that she loved him in sign language and give him a hug. She’d only seen him on TV . I’ll see if I can find the clip.

If you don't think humans intellect is vastly superior to animals there is something wrong with you, animals can't even add 1 +1 being conscious why they do it, and probably they don't know why they wake up in the morning, have trouble with mirrors even the smartest of them...

 

[Brightmoon]

If you don't think humans intellect is vastly superior to animals there is something wrong with you, animals can't even add 1 +1 being conscious why they do it, and probably they don't know why they wake up in the morning, have trouble with mirrors even the smartest of them...

. You know to catch a ball being thrown means that you have to predict where it will go . You’re basically solving a calculus equation when you do that . Dogs can do that too. It’s not that animals can’t do the same things, it’s just that we do them better . We can put numbers to that thrown ball calculus equation for example. And don’t forget that there are things that they do better than we do , for example , Chimps are stronger and cheetahs are faster

 

[pitabread]

Our intellect is so superior to animals that there is no comparison though

In what way? How are you measuring and comparing intellect? Be specific.

 

[pitabread]

If you don't think humans intellect is vastly superior to animals there is something wrong with you, animals can't even add 1 +1 being conscious why they do it, and probably they don't know why they wake up in the morning, have trouble with mirrors even the smartest of them...

Animals have been shown to have mathematical capabilities in a variety of species. This is not something unique to humans: Numerical and Arithmetic Abilities in Non-primate Species - Oxford Handbooks

And animals have shown recognition of mirrored images, again in various species:
Mirror test - Wikipedia

This is really just reaffirming what I said earlier: that those claiming humans are somehow special or superior, just aren't that familiar with other species and what they are capable of.

 

[pitabread]

even if evolution is true in that we came from lesser beings

Strictly speaking, there is no "lesser" or "greater" in evolution. That is a human projection and an egocentric one that that.

With respect to all life on Earth, we're all equally evolved.

 

[NBB]

In what way? How are you measuring and comparing intellect? Be specific.

Animals don't even hava a 'consciouss will' they just go by instincts, sure you can teach animals a few tricks, but they reason like even remotely close to people?
And just compare what they both can do. And if this starts as the previous argument, i'm out, since i'm not going to discuss that humans are vastly superiior in intellect over animals because this is obvious and clear.

 

[NBB]

Strictly speaking, there is no "lesser" or "greater" in evolution. That is a human projection and an egocentric one that that.

With respect to all life on Earth, we're all equally evolved.

Sorry i prefer to think a rabbit is superior or greater to an amoeba, and a human to a rabbit in some ways.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sorry i prefer to think a rabbit is superior or greater to an amoeba, and a human to a rabbit in some ways.

Is it possible that your definition definition of superior is ultimately "More like a human"?

 

[NBB]

Is it possible that your definition definition of superior is ultimately "More like a human"?

No, a computer is superior than an old television and this has nothing to do with human nature or less about nazism or something, is just an observation.

 

[pitabread]

Animals don't even hava a 'consciouss will' they just go by instincts, sure you can teach animals a few tricks, but they reason like even remotely close to people?

What is a "conscious will"? Again, how are you determining/measuring these things?

And just compare what they both can do. And if this starts as the previous argument, i'm out, since i'm not going to discuss that humans are vastly superiior in intellect over animals because this is obvious and clear.

If it was really "obvious and clear", then you'd have an easier time articulating what you're comparing. The fact you are trouble to the point of not wanting to even discuss it suggests it's anything but "obvious and clear".

 

[pitabread]

Sorry i prefer to think a rabbit is superior or greater to an amoeba, and a human to a rabbit in some ways.

You're welcome to think whatever you want. I'm looking for a defensible argument (from you) to support these claims.

For example if you think a rabbit is superior to an amoeba, what is your criteria for determining that? What specifically makes a rabbit "superior"?

 

[nolidad]

Birds are dinosaurs. What's the problem.

Their hind limbs and beaks are excellent for grasping. Clearly you have never owned a parrot.
Their hind limbs and beaks are excellent for fighting. Clearly you have never owned an eagle.
Their hind limbs are excellent for clawing. Clearly you have never stuck your hand in a cage and surprised an ostritch.

Many dinosaurs were warm blooded. Probably the majority of the later ones.

Of course they have to change. That's why we call it evolution!

You know what I am referring to. theropods turning to avian. That is the scientific consensus.

And how does one go about proving warm bloodedness if there are no feathers or blubber or hair preserved??

so demonstrate jaws to beaks and there you go! You say they have to change so show the change!

 

[pitabread]

No, a computer is superior than an old television

Not if you're trying to play certain classic video games.

 

[pitabread]

You say they have to change so show the change!

The physical changes are visible in patterns of preserved fossils over time. But since you've decided to arbitrarily dismiss the fossil record...

 

[nolidad]

The Pluto analogy was bang-on.

When it comes to biological evolution, we observe evolutionary processes happening in real time. With respect to the evolution of species over the Earth's history, it's the same process; it's just extrapolated over a longer period of time.

Creationists claiming that evolution cannot explain the diversity of species on Earth is very much akin to claiming that Pluto can't complete an orbit around the Sun. After all, we've never observed the latter in real time.

And there is the answer! They take what they can see and then just Extrapolate:

ex·trap·o·late
/ikˈstrapəˌlāt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

They ASSUME minor changes that can be seen produced massive change over X period of time! That variation within a genus also produced changes in family, phyla order and even kingdom!

That is untestable and assumed. TOE is an assumption based on taking the minor variations we can see and explain and assuming it caused all the change that cannot be tested.

And no that is a false analogy you are attempting to claim. We can observe Pluto in different places in the sky. this is far more testable than limbs becoming wings, limbs becoming fins, water breathers becoming air breathers and all the rest of the trillions X trillions X trillions X trillions of mutations required to go from microbe to man.

Evolution posits a possible reason for the biodiversity we see and its origins, but it cannot be tested, repeated and observed on the macro scale so in essence Darwinian evolution (microbes to man) is a philosophy and not empirical.

 

[nolidad]

What limit?

Each reproducing after its own kind. You know what we see , test repeat and continuously observe! Mice always reproduce mice. Apple trees always produce apples etc.etc.

 

[pitabread]

They ASSUME minor changes that can be seen produced massive change over X period of time! That variation within a genus also produced changes in family, phyla order and even kingdom!

Classifications like genus, family, phyla, etc, are just human classifications. They have no biological reality.

From a biological perspective, all that really matters is changes leading to reproductive/genetic isolation. We call that speciation and that has been directly observed. Once you have that, the rest is gravy.

That is untestable and assumed.

It's neither untestable nor assumed. We have records of patterns of organisms changing over the history of the Earth.

Likewise, we can test ancestral relationships of species via other avenues (e.g. genetics).

There is nothing untested nor assumed about any of this.

We can observe Pluto in different places in the sky. this is far more testable than limbs becoming wings, limbs becoming fins, water breathers becoming air breathers and all the rest of the trillions X trillions X trillions X trillions of mutations required to go from microbe to man.

Likewise, we can observe the patterns of fossils, genomes, biogeography, developmental biology, etc., in nature. The criteria you apply to Pluto applies equally to evolution. Either you accept that we can extrapolate from current observations or you don't.

If we can't conclude evolution from the observable data, then we can't conclude that Pluto can orbit around the Sun.

 

[pitabread]

Each reproducing after its own kind. You know what we see , test repeat and continuously observe! Mice always reproduce mice. Apple trees always produce apples etc.etc.

Define "kind". Quantify it with respect to biology.