Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[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.

According to your line of reasoning, Americans are not Americans. Europeans are not Europeans. Asians are not Asians. Musicians are not musicians. Artists are not Artists. And so on.

If an artist wasn't born to be an artist than becoming an artist would be impossible in your view? I am trying to understand why you think your objection is valid when I see no reason for its validity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I don't think you know what evolution is. You seem to think that it is one kind of animal (or plant or fungus) turning into another kind over a generation or a lifetime - a short enough time that we should have witnessed greater changes in living forms than we have. That does occur over long periods of time, and it is a gradual transition through a series of forms better adapted to their environments than earlier forms, each of those being another example of evolution.

Any change in a gene pool occurring because of the natural selection of genetic variants in offspring is biological evolution.

these questions really do lead to the idea that there is (exists) a force way beyond the realm of human design OR understanding.

Comments like yours, while true, are not something that I've seen except from creationists in search of a necessary role for an intelligent designer - something that couldn't have happened without one. To them I say that all explanations we have for observed phenomena do not involve a deity, and those as yet unexplained have naturalistic possibilities. The universe could be product of an unconscious substance which buds universes of all possible types including this one, and the first life could be the result of naturalistic chemical evolution.

There may be a deity, and it might have created the earliest universe and life on earth, but sufficient evidence to justify such a belief is lacking, and other possibilities not involving an intelligent designer, though not yet ruled in, cannot be ruled out.

 

[Astrophile]

Unfortunately they do.

I don't understand how stories about UFOs and alien abductions have anything to do with evolution. All the evidence - anatomical, genetic and fossil - shows that we share ancestors with the living great apes. If we were descended from extra-terrestrials who colonised the Earth, we should have nothing in common with the apes, and there would be no fossil intermediates such as the australopithecines. Even if aliens have visited the Earth, it would be impossible for them to produce offspring with any terrestrial life-form, so we cannot be hybrids between aliens and terrestrial apes.

Because - evolution 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?

Evolution certainly started a long time ago on the Earth - at least 3.5 billion years ago. However, all living species have the same amount of evolutionary history since the time of the 'primordial protoplasmic globule' or self-replicating macromolecule. All living species, except those that are on the verge of extinction, are evolving, and I doubt whether Homo sapiens is the latest species to evolve; we appear to have originated about 300,000 years ago, and I expect that other species have come into existence more recently. However, you would have to ask biologists about this.

 

[Astrophile]

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 -- : ??

For once we are in agreement; as you say, 'no none really knows.'

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

So far...I know many claim humans in the form of homo sapiens evolved biologically by chemical reaction, but actually there is no clear and distinct genetic evidence demonstrating these changes...homo sapien humans are staying so far as homo sapien humans. Unless, of course, some aren't so sapien. Maybe evolving to duller than sapien?
Look back further you say and I will find the last common ancestor of the homo genus and gorillas?? (really? lol...) Here's one explanation: "Much remains unknown about the common ancestors of living apes and humans from the critical time when these branches diverged. Fossil evidence from this part of the primate family tree is scarce, and consists mostly of isolated teeth and broken jaw fragments. As such, researchers were not sure what the last common ancestors of living apes and humans might have looked like, and even whether they originated in Africa or Eurasia. [See Photos of Alesi and the Kenya Excavation Site]
(Right -- evidence is scarce, estimates and postulates are made -- but -- no certainty and no proof.) Here's What the Last Common Ancestor of Apes and Humans Looked Like | Live Science
After reading the article, I go back to my earlier days when I would say -- "riiighhhttt..."

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand how stories about UFOs and alien abductions have anything to do with evolution. All the evidence - anatomical, genetic and fossil - shows that we share ancestors with the living great apes. If we were descended from extra-terrestrials who colonised the Earth, we should have nothing in common with the apes, and there would be no fossil intermediates such as the australopithecines. Even if aliens have visited the Earth, it would be impossible for them to produce offspring with any terrestrial life-form, so we cannot be hybrids between aliens and terrestrial apes.



Evolution certainly started a long time ago on the Earth - at least 3.5 billion years ago. However, all living species have the same amount of evolutionary history since the time of the 'primordial protoplasmic globule' or self-replicating macromolecule. All living species, except those that are on the verge of extinction, are evolving, and I doubt whether Homo sapiens is the latest species to evolve; we appear to have originated about 300,000 years ago, and I expect that other species have come into existence more recently. However, you would have to ask biologists about this.

Certainly these UFO claimed for real stories weigh in here. Either you believe evolution could have happened elsewhere in this universe or you don't. Put another way, either evolution happened elsewhere although no proof of living matter evolving to become sapient organisms on Mars, the moon, Saturn, or anywhere else, despite claims of aliens 'visiting' the earth, lol, even in sci-fi movies or novels. Novels? So why wouldn't evolution, so prolific and plentiful on the earth (supposedly) happen by an element landing on another planet?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Who said anything about alien origins of humans? Although as you said, the chemical reaction leading to the evoution of humans as the theory goes, did supposedly happen on the earth. That was not the question about "alien origins of humans..."

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Despite the fact that eukaryotes and prokaryotes may be described as simple, they aren't so simple.

 

[YoursTrue]

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 A bbouased 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.

About belief and evidence -- if I thought there was evidence proving the different branches of life (plants, animals) came about by evolution at this point I'd have to agree. But as I look into it more, the fact that there are common genetics and dna to an extent in various forms of organisms does not prove evolution. It proves that there are similar genetics and dna, although not exact, among various forms. Some closer than others. Well, it's been interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

I have seen reports calling the initial supposed beginnings of the process of evolution as simple elements. Next time I'll keep track of where I read it. But going to the aqueous solutions seemingly necessary for the process. How simple is that aqueous solution?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Not sure if I answered this but am reading your post again. What evidence is there to show that viruses change or mutate to anything but viruses? No matter if it's omicron or covid-19, they are still -- viruses, are they not? Oh yes, and going back to chimpanzees, what evidence is there within cognizant history showing that chimpanzees evolved to ??? anything else but a chimpanzee. There are lots of chimpanzees in this world and have been for many years. So far, insofar as I have read, chimpanzees remaim chimpanzees. Human remain humans and -- viruses, yes, remain viruses. Even if some humans genetically pass on various differing traits, such as blond or brown hair. Not sure if chimpanzees reproduce lighter or darker skins and hair. What do you think? (But even if they do - they're still chimpanzees, not evolving - ok, didn't use the word morphing--to another type of ape.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Who said anything about alien origins of humans? Although as you said, the chemical reaction leading to the evoution of humans as the theory goes, did supposedly happen on the earth. That was not the question about "alien origins of humans..."

Inr reference to the post you responded to. ou may not have been clear how you responded, The biological chemistry of both abiogenesis and evolution simply follows the Natural Laws, natural processes in the environment over the history of the earth.

 

[John53]

Not sure if I answered this but am reading your post again. What evidence is there to show that viruses change or mutate to anything but viruses? No matter if it's omicron or covid-19, they are still -- viruses, are they not? Oh yes, and going back to chimpanzees, what evidence is there within cognizant history showing that chimpanzees evolved to ??? anything else but a chimpanzee. There are lots of chimpanzees in this world and have been for many years. So far, insofar as I have read, chimpanzees remaim chimpanzees. Human remain humans and -- viruses, yes, remain viruses. Even if some humans genetically pass on various differing traits, such as blond or brown hair. Not sure if chimpanzees reproduce lighter or darker skins and hair. What do you think? (But even if they do - they're still chimpanzees, not evolving - ok, didn't use the word morphing--to another type of ape.)

You keep saying or asking the same thing over and over. Chimps are still chimps, humans are still humans, virus are still virus etc.

What are you expecting? A new species every generation? Or are you just trolling?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So far...I know many claim humans in the form of homo sapiens evolved biologically by chemical reaction, but actually there is no clear and distinct genetic evidence demonstrating these changes...homo sapien humans are staying so far as homo sapien humans. Unless, of course, some aren't so sapien. Maybe evolving to duller than sapien?

Humans are changing though. Modern homo sapien sapiens hasn't been around that long. We've only been around 200,000 years, and nature is very slow by our standards and norms. If the entirety of Earth's history where represented as a year, we don't show up until at the very last second.

 

[YoursTrue]

According to your line of reasoning, Americans are not Americans. Europeans are not Europeans. Asians are not Asians. Musicians are not musicians. Artists are not Artists. And so on.

If an artist wasn't born to be an artist than becoming an artist would be impossible in your view? I am trying to understand why you think your objection is valid when I see no reason for its validity.

That does not mean that a couple does not have the capability of producing offspring with the possibility of variant hair colors or textures. They're still human even though certain characteristics are different as well as inherited.

 

[rational experiences]

One question..

What is God.

One answer all by man as one self..

Scientific falsification of the theory of evolution.

Water is water holy water. In a holy life it is cooled by ice the saviour of cold states.

Water doesn't evolve.

A baboon remains as an ape in the baboon ape life.

A human is always just a human in its own human family human

As Information is exact.

Science and maths states categorically human DNA is human DNA.

No argument anywhere.

Ignored.

As some humans express ignorance as a belief in self presence human.

The real human teaching.

 

[John53]

Sometimes I look at a post and my brain says to me... nah mate, stop trying to feed me that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Much remains unknown about the common ancestors of living apes and humans from the critical time when these branches diverged. Fossil evidence from this part of the primate family tree is scarce, and consists mostly of isolated teeth and broken jaw fragments. As such, researchers were not sure what the last common ancestors of living apes and humans might have looked like, and even whether they originated in Africa or Eurasia.

Do you consider this evidence against the theory being correct? Presumably you do if you posted it in the midst of a critique of evolutionary theory. It is not. You would know that if you knew the theory, which explains the processes that caused human ancestors to diverge from other lines to become human beings as well as all other evolutionary changes. It does not predict the path that process will take other than that a living populations will experience genetic variation across generations due to natural selection and evolve into other forms. That's left to the other sciences like paleontology and physical anthropology.

So why wouldn't evolution, so prolific and plentiful on the earth (supposedly) happen by an element landing on another planet?

Evolution would be expected to occur everywhere it can, just like life itself. Is this part of an argument against evolution. If so, it's hard to see why you think so.

About belief and evidence -- if I thought there was evidence proving the different branches of life (plants, animals) came about by evolution at this point I'd have to agree. But as I look into it more, the fact that there are common genetics and dna to an extent in various forms of organisms does not prove evolution.

Once again, is this meant to be an argument against evolution - that you aren't convinced? It's not.

chimpanzees remain chimpanzees. Human remain humans and -- viruses, yes, remain viruses.

Is this part of an argument against evolution? It is not.

Your position seems to be that if you haven't witnessed a chimp producing a non-chimp (or some other animal giving birth to something outside of its genus), the theory is incorrect. If a chimp or a human produced a non-chimp or non-human offspring, that would falsify the theory. Evolution doesn't allow for that to happen. It predicts that it won't.

How do you think you're going to convince people who understand the theory and are familiar with the evidence in support of it with arguments that demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the theory predicts and what it takes to falsify it?

I'll assume that you are a Christian creationist, since I only see arguments like your from creationists trying to overturn evolution using creationist apologetics memes. Those who have been on sites like this one for a while see the same assortment of counterarguments, one of the common ones being yours. Can I give you some friendly advice? Don't share those with critical thinkers. It has the opposite effect to the one you would hope for. These arguments aren't intended for that audience. They're intended for people willing to believe in creationism. They are intended to help them feel that their position is sound and scientific, but can only do that if the creationist consumer of the meme cannot properly evaluate it. That's where these apologetics can promote creationism, not in a mixed forum like this one.

Have you ever noticed that creationist apologetics is virtually never about creationism? It's about evolution, the hope being that if one cannot provide evidence or argument for creationism, he can remove the only competing hypothesis by falsifying it. Look at how different that is from the scientists do. Their argument is all about the merits of the theory - it's ability to unify mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. There isn't a single reference to creationism. Just like with the creationist apologist. If such beliefs had merit, creationists should be able to make their case to others without mentioning the alternative hypothesis, evolution.

And one other observation I've shared with Christian creationists is that Christian creationism is already ruled out by the mountains of evidence supporting evolution I mentioned. Even were the theory falsified, that evidence doesn't go away. It merely needs to be interpreted in the light of the falsifying find, and I can think of only one logical possibility were that to happen - the evidence was a deception perpetrated by an intelligent designer trying to deceive man into believing that he and the rest of the tree of life evolved naturalistically. Does that sound like the Christian God? Is He a deceiving God? Doesn't He tell you that He wants to be known, understood, and believed? Would such a God then perpetrate a deception that would only serve to undermine that message were the deception uncovered by a falsifying find? Personally, I'd consider a superhuman (but not supernatural) extraterrestrial race the most likely candidate to account for the deception. Second most likely would be a deceptive supernatural creator, but I would not turn to Christianity for that deity. A god like Loki, a trickster god, would be more likely than Yahwey.

Can you see now why bringing Christian apologetics to a mixed venue is a bad idea if your purpose is to promote creationism? The arguments are only effective with those that can't see their flaws, and should be reserved for them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That does not mean that a couple does not have the capability of producing offspring with the possibility of variant hair colors or textures. They're still human even though certain characteristics are different as well as inherited.

What is the point of repeating this sort of thing ad nauseum when heritable genetic change expressed in the offspring recognize the theory of evolution and does not refute it? That they remain human is the expectation and that they would be another species is not. You imply that it should be, but cannot provide reason or evidence to support that position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes I look at a post and my brain says to me... nah mate, stop trying to feed me that.

All the time.