Evolution of what?

[YoursTrue]

Btw, @YoursTrue

The Miller-Urey experiment wasn’t the only experiment for Abiogenesis. Other chemists (including biochemists) used different inorganic chemicals that could possibly existed pre-3.6 billion years ago, in their own experiments, to produce amino acids or other organic compounds, eg adenine, which is one of the 4 nucleobase molecules in RNA & in DNA, from Joan Oró’s experiment in 1969.

what you need to understand that organic compounds would have to exist, before any prokaryotic cell can form.

some think that such biological compounds or molecules can form in hydrothermal vents, or any body of water that were exposed to prebiotic atmosphere.

Plus, the Allende meteorite and the Murchison meteorite, both in 1969, revealed that these meteors and asteroids can form organic compound, outside of the earth’s atmosphere.

So organic compounds could probably have extraterrestrial origins. But biochemists are researching Abiogenesis are not ignoring any possible sources.

While Abiogenesis may not be science yet, as they need more evidence and data, the current evidence and data do support there are number of avenues for origins of biological matters existing before first life, which make Abiogenesis falsifiable.

The same cannot be said for Intelligent Design or any form of creationism, where they required “God” or “Designer”. If you cannot observe the Creator or Designer, then Genesis Creation and Intelligent Design are both unfalsifiable.

That’s the differences between what Abiogenesis have been able to test so far, and the religion (and your Bible) that you “believe“ to be true, which untestable.

Let me put it this way to you, gnostic, you can't have evolution without a start from -- something or somewhere. Do you want to tell me that is not true? and that I'm ignorant and don't know what I'm talking about?

 

[gnostic]

All these philosophical terms. I guess that's part of science, too.

Methodological Naturalism is indeed a philosophy, but it provide how scientists should proceed to acquire answers and possible solutions, through Scientific Method.

How one formulate a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis (“test” through observations, eg experiments, empirical evidence & acquiring data), that a procedure or methodology, not philosophy.

The Scientific Method is about doing the “work”, and the tests (evidence & data), will either refute the hypothesis or verify the hypothesis.

Unlike the majority of philosophies, Methodological Naturalism is very useful.

Lots of philosophies only pertained to morals, which only applicable for certain groups of people, which have nothing to do with how science to be used. And the rest are useless and outdated.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The same cannot be said for Intelligent Design or any form of creationism, where they required “God” or “Designer”. If you cannot observe the Creator or Designer, then Genesis Creation and Intelligent Design are both unfalsifiable.

That’s partially true God is unfalsifiable. Because He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

 

[shunyadragon]

All these philosophical terms. I guess that's part of science, too.

No, as a generalization philosophical terms are NOT apart of science.

The concept of Methodological Naturalism was proposed by Popper and from that point on scientific terms apply to science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I don't 'hear' when someone is yelling.

I doubt you hear regardless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The thing is, that dolphins and humans are different. Dolphins have qualities that humans do not have.

Do you have a point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once a human, always a human. Same with dolphins. Once a dolphin, always a dolphin.

Yes.
Once an eukaryote, always an eukaryote.
Once a vertebrate, always a vertebrate.
Once a mammal, always a mammal.
Once a primate, always a primate.
Once a human, always a human.

Humans = still primates, mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes.

How many times must this be pointed out to you before you will let go of this strawman?
"strawman" because you seem to think that this fact somehow doesn't fit evolution theory.
In reality, it is the only thing that fits evolution. If mammals would produce non-mammals, evolution theory would be falsified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You and others can say you're an ape or I'm an ape. That's your obvious prerogative. Scientists can say you're an offshoot from an ape unknown ancestor as well as fish. And for this -- there's no "proof." No Miller-Urey type experiment proving the thesis.

It's a genetic fact.

You not "believing" the facts doesn't change the facts.

 

[blü 2]

Many evolutionists are so obsesse d with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

They don't "limit it only to animals". It begins with, and still is true of, microorganisms. And of course it includes the plants.

The history of the earth's environment over the four and a half billion years it's been here has been the subject of considerable study. Not all questions are answered in a manner that attracts a general consensus of the relevant scientists. But there's evidence of life on earth from maybe four billion years ago ─ you might enjoy this >article<.

 

[wellwisher]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

Science is currently designed around a wide range of specialties. This is an artifact of left brain thinking; differential. The various specialties, although excellent in their details and niches, tend to lose track of the bigger forest; all of science, because of their nearsightedness to the trees in front of each specialty.

This makes science and science theory very disjointed, with a wide range of niche theories, that do not effectively overlap each other. This is not how nature or evolution is arranged. Consciousness, for example, plays a major role in evolution, since being aware of the environment and controlling locomotion, goes a long way to survival and selection, yet this is not a major part of evolution. The fossil evidence does not have brain matter or examples of neutral wiring, that may not even be connected to the DNA; based no real time learning. Biology and the DNA approach is better with a small section of the trees in the forest. This may be why the current science behind evolution is treated as dogma. You need to oversell to created prestige style learning; consensus of the nearsighted.

Water plays a major role and global role, in terms of how the surface of the earth changes with time, as life evolved, Climate change, even today is resulting in the loss of species. Therefore, global water patterns; climate; ice or water, warmer or cooler, can alter the parameters of natural selection. Evolution correlates while water selects. Water can erode mountains to make it easier for plants grow. Water can freeze in the winter and crack large rocks. Water float when if freezes so the bottom life is protected from cold. Water is the basis for all weather and rain, with rain leading to storms and floods that can alter the environment. Water is also the main component of the living state. There are 100 times as many water molecules in a cell compared to al the organics molecules combined. Water was there was day one, reacting; abiogenesis day 1, all the way to today. Water can put out forest fires, and then water the burnt land for new selective growth.

You cannot easily take the current science specialty for evolution; orchid, out of its little greenhouse or the theory will wilt. They prefer you come to their greenhouse where it can bloom better. But they cannot visit all the other greenhouses, to cross breed. Water is the Swiss army knife of all the evolution variables when it comes to integrating life and evolution to all the greenhouses; physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology.

Water has been recently found at the core of the earth, corroding the iron core. I predicted this years ago and somebody listened. This water process can release iron electrons to the surface; reduction potential. Life is big on reduction potential; make reduced organic compounds. Life on earth still benefit by the earth's iron core electrons. This idea will wilt most of the orchids, since this is outside all their greenhouses. Hemoglobin in blood uses iron and water; CO2 and O2 exchange. Photosynthesis uses a magnesium ion which in water is mildly alkaline; oceans are slightly negative or alkaline from the core electron flow.

Alkaline water usually has a pH of 8 or 9. To qualify as alkaline, bottled water must contain alkalinizing minerals like calcium and magnesium carbonate and have negative oxidant reduction potential, meaning it should act as an antioxidant, something like blueberries or fish oil.

Magnesium carbonate is essentially CO2 on the catalytic magnetism ion of Chlorophyl.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

That comment makes no sense and just goes to show again how little you understand of the topic as a whole.
The environment, which is ever-changing, is what determines the selection pressures that the living things in it are subject to.

Living things adapt to their environment. Not the other way round.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals

Where on earth did you get that idea?
Evolution applies to all life. This includes plants, animals,... everything that is alive and reproduces with variation.

, and forget about the environment

Again: the environment is literally what determines the selection pressures.
How could it be "forgotten"? You make no sense.

that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

Again makes no sense.
The environment is a dynamic habitat in which life has to manage to survive.
Life adapts to the ever-changing environment. That's what evolution is all about....

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

Is this a serious question?
I have a hard time to take it seriously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I want to define a new "evolution" about the sorroundings of the alleged evolved animals ... so, what?

Define away. Just remember that if you wish to discuss the scientific theory of evolution from biology, you are not entitled to your own "definitions".

Don't you think that the environment must have change for the new arrivals of new animals?
Like: when did the dry land appear for those walking animals?

You have it backwards.
Life adapts to the environment. Not the other way round.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This makes science and science theory very disjointed, with a wide range of niche theories, that do not effectively overlap each other.

Nonsense.

In fact, ironically, evolution theory has been called the "unified field theory" of the biological sciences, because it ties everything together in biology, micro-biology, genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, bio-chemistry, paleontology, etc... Each of which are pretty independent fields.

And it goes even further then that.... Take the discovery of Tiktaalik for example. Found by prediction as a result of collaboration with geologists.
Paleontologists had a timeframe in mind (some 350 million years ago) and a specific type of environment (swampy shallow waters) for a transitional species reflecting the transition of fish-like sea animals to 4-legged land crawlers. In collaboration with anatomy experts they had anatomical features in mind also.
Geologists supplied them with potential places where they could find exposed rock of that age which at that time consisted of the correct environment.
It only took a few weeks of digging to find exactly what they expected to find: a 350 million year old "fish-apod" with the exact transitional features they expected.


That's explanatory power for ya. Multiple independent fields, multiple independent lines of research / knowledge / inquiry, all converging on the same answers.


The idea that each of these fields of expertise only live on their own little island is either extremely ignorant or just a plain lie.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God is unfalsifiable

So are claims for vampires existing or not, and for the same reason.

I'm convinced that believing in this theory is causing a great deal of animalistic and anti-social behavior, as well as being a unrecognized source of perturbation in our modern day society.

Right now, religion is a dominant source of modern problems. You've got the American Christian theocrats screwing with abortion and IVF law and the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Muslims in a holy war.

evolutionists cannot prove that humans have any connection with the trunk of that supposed tree.

That humans evolved from non-human apes is settled science. It is unreasonable to think otherwise, meaning that those who do are sidestepping reason.

The entire doctrine of evolution is assumptions and speculation without any proof.

That's incorrect, but even if it weren't, you're a Christian creationist. That describes your world view - nothing but assumption and speculation. So what's your complaint if that's good enough for you?

The evolutionary doctrine was a failed attempt to deny the Creator. It is now a failed attempt to deny His creation of each animal separately.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It is unassailable. What fails is creationism. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and lacks evidentiary support.

I'm not really interested in what the doctrine of evolution claims... What they have to do is demonstrate it with real evidence and not with assumptions.

It's already been done. It changes nothing that you haven't learned, understood, or accepted it.

The biblical Adam and Eve are two more credible people than the ape they named Eve and the husband with whom she had the first human being

Mitochondrial Eve existed, assuming that's what you're referring to. And there was no first human being. Assuming that Mitochondrial Eve was Homo sapiens, so were her parents.

 

[gnostic]

That’s partially true God is unfalsifiable. Because He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Then you don’t understand what it mean by “falsifiable”.

Sorry.

There is nothing “partial” about God being “unfalsifiable“.

A model of explanations/predictions is only “falsifiable“, when the evidence are “observable” and “testable”.

Being “observable“ or “testable” mean have the abilities to “observe” the evidence, that would include any or all of the following - “detect”, “quantify”, “measure”, “compare”, “analyse”, observe the properties, etc. There have to be evidence. That’s what make the model within a hypothesis or theory, falsifiable.

Anyone can make up claims, but if they cannot observe the evidence, or they can’t find way to set up and perform even a single experiment that are repeatable, then such unfalsifiable claims cannot even be called a hypothesis, because a hypothesis has to be falsifiable, hence observable & testable.

So, if you cannot do any of that, observe God, then God is “unfalsifiable”, which would make any concept of creation, “unfalsifiable”.

 

[gnostic]

This makes science and science theory very disjointed, with a wide range of niche theories, that do not effectively overlap each other. This is not how nature or evolution is arranged.

Nonsense.

In fact, ironically, evolution theory has been called the "unified field theory" of the biological sciences, because it ties everything together in biology, micro-biology, genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, bio-chemistry, paleontology, etc... Each of which are pretty independent fields.

You are right about Evolution being “unified field theory”, @TagliatelliMonster .

It also unified the 5 different mechanisms into a single theory. The 5 mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutations
3. Gene Flow
4. Genetic Drift
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

Instead of having 5 different theories for each different mechanisms, the theory explains each separate mechanism as a model.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then you don’t understand what it mean by “falsifiable”.

Sorry.

There is nothing “partial” about God being “unfalsifiable“.

A model of explanations/predictions is only “falsifiable“, when the evidence are “observable” and “testable”.

Being “observable“ or “testable” mean have the abilities to “observe” the evidence, that would include any or all of the following - “detect”, “quantify”, “measure”, “compare”, “analyse”, observe the properties, etc. There have to be evidence. That’s what make the model within a hypothesis or theory, falsifiable.

Anyone can make up claims, but if they cannot observe the evidence, or they can’t find way to set up and perform even a single experiment that are repeatable, then such unfalsifiable claims cannot even be called a hypothesis, because a hypothesis has to be falsifiable, hence observable & testable.

So, if you cannot do any of that, observe God, then God is “unfalsifiable”, which would make any concept of creation, “unfalsifiable”.

Because we don’t need experiments to prove God exists. He does, whether a person trusts and submits to God are one thing and if you don’t you’ll waste your life trying to prove stuff like evolution and natural selection or other nonsense and never will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because we don’t need experiments to prove God exists. He does, whether a person trusts and submits to God are one thing and if you don’t you’ll waste your life trying to prove stuff like evolution and natural selection or other nonsense and never will.

You don't get to assume that any more than those opposing you get to assume that there is no god.

 

[blü 2]

That’s partially true God is unfalsifiable. Because He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Perhaps the argument that the existence of God is unfalsifiable (as distinct from true) is helped by the fact that God has no definition appropriate to a real being, but is defined in imaginary terms like omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, perfect &c &c.

But that limits the nature of God's existence to the supernatural, which as you know is a subset of the imaginary. God never appears, says or does, and is only known to exist as a concept / notion / thing imagined in individual brains. Moreover the nature of the god so imagined is with not many exceptions the product of the individual's acculturation.

So a very strong argument exists ─ in my view stronger than for the unicorn, or bigfoot, or the yeti ─ that no other form of existence than the conceptual / imaginary can be attributed to God.

If you disagree ─ if you say God has objective existence hence can be found in the world external to the self, aka objective reality ─ please set out a definition of God appropriate to such a being such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That’s partially true God is unfalsifiable.

That's true enough.

Because He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Nah, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that science can only explore measurable phenomena. Anything that exists outside the natural realm is simply not the purview of science.