Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[YoursTrue]

Not necessarily right. As Polymath 257 said, there may not have been a 'before the "big bang"'. If time started at the "big bang", the phrase 'before the "big bang"' is meaningless.



Regardless of what existed or did not exist 'before the "big bang"', matter certainly existed at the time that the Earth was formed (about 9.2 billion years after the "big bang"). This matter included the hydrogen and helium that were formed during the "big bang", and the heavier elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, phosphorus, sulphur, iron, etc.) that had been produced by nuclear reactions in stars between the "big bang" and the formation of the solar system. This is what is important, not what may have existed 9.2 billion years before the formation of the Earth.



I can only repeat my previous answer, that nobody knows whether the mass that exploded was there before the 'big bang' or whether it came into existence at the 'big bang', or whether there are other possibilities. What we are fairly sure of is that immediately after 'time zero' the universe was in the form of a 'soup' of elementary particles and that as it expanded and cooled these elementary particles 'condensed' into electrons and nuclei of hydrogen, helium and lithium. After a few hundred million years, this hydrogen and helium formed into clouds of gas that contracted and collapsed to form the first stars.



Again, I can only repeat that the first life on Earth consisted of the same chemical elements that modern living things consist of: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, calcium, chlorine, iron, etc., and that, with the exception of hydrogen, these elements were produced by nuclear fusion reactions in stars before the Earth was formed. So far as I understand it, 'life' is not some external 'element' that has to be added to a system of organic chemicals to make it work; it is an emergent property of the chemical system.

Not disagreeing with the concept of time, although it's hard to understand "before" what is called the "big bang." (If there was one.) But that doesn't matter. What does matter is that no one really knows. Human reasoning would tell us that it is a conundrum to say that matter was always there or -- not always there. As I said, it (the concept either way) defies human reasoning. At least as far as I'm concerned. Very similar to -- : ??

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is still a virus.

So? It still changed and is changing over time. I know this has been told to you many times, but it would falsify evolution if a virus suddenly changed into another lifeform. No one that understands the theory would expect it to become another lifeform in a single bound or a couple of years.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is still a virus.

But it's an evolutionary development.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok. The aqueous solution had to be there though.

I don't understand your objection? You asked for other factors that would drive chemical evolution and ultimately set the stage for life. I gave you one, molecular shape, and left open other factors that would be expected to exist in order for life to emerge. Like the presences of water. Chemical evolution does not just happen. The laws of nature apply and variation in the conditions can lead to different reactions or different products.

 

[YoursTrue]

Technically, everything alive today is the latest evolutionary development. Not just humans.

I was thinking someone would say something like that. So explain -- what do you mean by "the latest evolutionary development." Followed by 'not just humans.' If you're saying that humans produce different skin colors, different hair textures, etc., depending on genetics, I will say in reference that humans remain humans and doesn't seem they are 'evolving' to be something other than humans. Yes, it's obvious that skin color and height, etc., can be genetically shaped. Tall, short, curly hair, straight hair, etc. OK, I believe you and others will argue with that.
Humans are humans. Still. Gorillas are gorillas, etc. Still. No matter how they reproduce, gorillas have remained as gorillas, and humans remain as humans. Etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

But it's an evolutionary development.

One can keep saying this. But viruses remain viruses. Gorillas remain gorillas. Humans remain humans.

 

[ppp]

Humans are humans. Still. Gorillas are gorillas, etc. Still. No matter how they reproduce, gorillas have remained as gorillas, and humans remain as humans. Etc.

No. Eventually, gorillas will gradually evolve to something else. Same for humans. Although another option for humans is that we modify our own genes. Which is effectively the same effect.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand your objection? You asked for other factors that would drive chemical evolution and ultimately set the stage for life. I gave you one, molecular shape, and left open other factors that would be expected to exist in order for life to emerge. Like the presences of water. Chemical evolution does not just happen. The laws of nature apply and variation in the conditions can lead to different reactions or different products.

As I was looking into the mechanics of nuclear fission, it is said that tremendous energy is within the nucleus, small as it is. It's not so simple, is it? In actuality, no human was there when life is said to have come from inanimate objects, which in themselves are quite complex despite terms such as 'simple' sometimes used. The main principle is that there are things such as -- what was there if anything before the mass exploded called the big bang? Where did the mass come from? Although that question may arise in some minds, and analyses may show that tremendous energy exists within the nucleus of an atom, these questions really do lead to the idea that there is (exists) a force way beyond the realm of human design OR understanding.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand your objection? You asked for other factors that would drive chemical evolution and ultimately set the stage for life. I gave you one, molecular shape, and left open other factors that would be expected to exist in order for life to emerge. Like the presences of water. Chemical evolution does not just happen. The laws of nature apply and variation in the conditions can lead to different reactions or different products.

Aqueous solution was there -- it's not so simple even for natural reactions.

 

[YoursTrue]

But it's an evolutionary development.

Viruses have not been observed to evolve or develop to become anything but a virus, have they? Same with gorillas. And humans.

 

[John53]

Even stupider than I am?
Uh oh.
It must be quite a burden dealing
with people so far less intelligent.

I think that is strong evidence of evolution

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One can keep saying this. But viruses remain viruses. Gorillas remain gorillas. Humans remain humans.

Humans haven't always been homo sapiens. Amd earlier members of the homo genus looked more ape like than modern human like. Go back further and you'll find the last common ancestor of the homo genus and gorillas.

 

[John53]

YES! Either I am a stupid or a genius! I know what I am doing.

Is this a poll?

 

[gnostic]

Not disagreeing with the concept of time, although it's hard to understand "before" what is called the "big bang." (If there was one.)

The Big Bang cosmology never talk of there be a "before". So it is nonsense to talk of a "before", when talking of BB.

There are other theoretical concepts that do hypothesize there being a "before".

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that is strong evidence of evolution

Mmmmf...duh...whuh?

 

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately they do. Because - evoluition supposedly started a long time ago on the earth. Now it seems that human life is the latest evolutionary development. Do you agree with that?

No, the speculation of UFOs, Alien origins of humans has nothing to do with the science of abiogenesis and evolution,

Though there is evidence of many of the amino acids part chemical of life did arrive on meteorites.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was thinking someone would say something like that. So explain -- what do you mean by "the latest evolutionary development." Followed by 'not just humans.' If you're saying that humans produce different skin colors, different hair textures, etc., depending on genetics, I will say in reference that humans remain humans and doesn't seem they are 'evolving' to be something other than humans. Yes, it's obvious that skin color and height, etc., can be genetically shaped. Tall, short, curly hair, straight hair, etc. OK, I believe you and others will argue with that.
Humans are humans. Still. Gorillas are gorillas, etc. Still. No matter how they reproduce, gorillas have remained as gorillas, and humans remain as humans. Etc.

You mentioned humans as the latest evolutionary development. What did you mean?

As far as the evidence demonstrates, all living things are the development of a process of evolution.

I know you think that continually responding that humans are still humans and viruses are still viruses means something. But it doesn't mean anything as a criticism of evolution. What is it that you think that means? Can you show us comments on here or claims in the literature where people are stating that a human giving birth to another form of life is evolution. That would not be evolution as defined by the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Viruses have not been observed to evolve or develop to become anything but a virus, have they? Same with gorillas. And humans.

Why does the evidence indicate that humans and gorillas (two different hominids) share a common lineage and both evolved to the point they are at now? How is it that the theory of evolution has been used to predict aspects of that evolution that were latter determined to be fact? Was it that they were purposefully made to appear that way to mislead us? If so, can you show me how you know it is a contrived appearance? What is your evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aqueous solution was there -- it's not so simple even for natural reactions.

I do not recall anyone saying it was simple or that water wasn't part of the process. What is it that you are saying?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I was looking into the mechanics of nuclear fission, it is said that tremendous energy is within the nucleus, small as it is. It's not so simple, is it? In actuality, no human was there when life is said to have come from inanimate objects, which in themselves are quite complex despite terms such as 'simple' sometimes used. The main principle is that there are things such as -- what was there if anything before the mass exploded called the big bang? Where did the mass come from? Although that question may arise in some minds, and analyses may show that tremendous energy exists within the nucleus of an atom, these questions really do lead to the idea that there is (exists) a force way beyond the realm of human design OR understanding.

Again, I do not know anyone claiming cosmology, abiogenesis or evolution of life is simple. But complexity can be examined and complex processes can be observed, hypothesized on, explained and even understood. What is your objection over simplicity and complexity?

You will have to talk to more physicists about the Big Bang and the origin of the universe. However, the universe or life came to be, the process that is acting on life since it arose is evolution and that is best described and explained by the Theory of Evolution that we use today. Not a perfect explanation, but the best we have and one that is supported and does explain what we observe.

There are lots of things beyond explanation by humans. There are lots of beliefs that all claim to be the one and only answer to that body of the unexplained. None making their respective claims of having the one true truth have ever been able to demonstrate the validity of that believed 'truth' with evidence. You are against the theory of evolution because of what you believe. I accept that. But you have not shown any validity to your rejection of the theory or offered any evidence-based explanations for what has been observed to persuade anyone on a purely rational basis without resorting to the unsupported fixture of belief. Constantly pointing out that plants are still plants or viruses are still viruses is not evidence that the theory has failed. The theory does not predict that a virus, bacteria, fungi, plant, or animal will suddenly change into or give immediate 'birth' to another form of life.

As Christians we share a common belief. But it is clear we have different interpretations of that belief based on divergent knowledge, experience, state and perception. I cannot show you that my interpretation is correct and you cannot persuade me to concede to your interpretation. We--neither of us--do not have the evidence. Based on my interpretation of belief, I cannot reject evidence and reasoned explanation simply because that explanation makes me uncomfortable in my belief. It is equally possible that my interpretation needs to be improved with the new evidence.