Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[Dan From Smithville]

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.)

That is the point. Living things are not seen to change instantaneously or through reproduction in a single generation. The theory of evolution cannot be used to postulate such change. Such change would refute the theory of evolution.

What is cognizant history? History that thinks and is self-aware?

You have just turned this into a meaningless mantra with the apparent notion that you believe it means something.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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 live in the United States that had an existing population and was more recently settled by peoples of Europe. Did those early colonists and explorers from Europe suddenly become Americans just by showing up? Today, all the citizens in the US are Americans. Are there still Europeans?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

No offense, but you have not shown a propensity of understanding when it comes to the scientific literature, concepts or evidence. Perhaps it was relative and comparative to modern organisms. By comparison, it would not be expected that first life would be as complex as it later became. By the way, complexity in living things is a consequence of evolution and neither a necessity in life nor a demand of theory.

There is no definitive answer to the complexity of the pre-biotic chemical makeup of fresh or marine waters. Are you postulating a specificity and complexity necessary or are you just shooting in the dark and hoping to hit something?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It is comparative. First life would not likely be as complex as later life. Prokaryotes are less complex than eukaryotes. C. elegans is less complex than an elephant. Do you dispute that?

Even simple living things can carry out complex biological processes just as that of the more complex.

I think you latch onto these semantic divergences and place too much meaning into them in hopes of finding flaws with the theory of evolution. How these things are worded could change how biological information and theory are communicated, but it wouldn't alter the substance of those facts or the observed relationships and change in living things over time.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is comparative. First life would not likely be as complex as later life. Prokaryotes are less complex than eukaryotes. C. elegans is less complex than an elephant. Do you dispute that?

Even simple living things can carry out complex biological processes just as that of the more complex.

I think you latch onto these semantic divergences and place too much meaning into them in hopes of finding flaws with the theory of evolution. How these things are worded could change how biological information and theory are communicated, but it wouldn't alter the substance of those facts or the observed relationships and change in living things over time.

To be equally as honest with you, I see that there are situations in scientific reasoning about when things evolved that change upon new discovery. So what was evidently taught as true changes when something seems to change times and such. I'm sure you will have a reason for that but nonetheless even scientists can't be sure of what they determine. Later...

 

[Astrophile]

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 remain 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.)

The important question is not what chimpanzees will evolve into but what they evolved from. During most of the Miocene epoch, there were no chimpanzees, although there were many other species of apes. Obviously modern chimpanzees must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene and earlier epochs, so they must be descended from animals (specifically apes) that were not chimpanzees.

 

[Astrophile]

Who said anything about alien origins of humans?

You did. After I had written a post (post 382) about the 'big bang' and what (if anything existed before it), you replied as follows:

By the way, as we know there are posters here that assert it is possible and likely that other types of beings evolved (?) maybe way out in the universe. (Far away from the earth) I was just watching a trailer for a movie about a true life person who claims to have been abducted by aliens, then somehow brought back to earth (?) again. I personally have no interest in seeing the movie based on "real life," however what I noticed and fascinated me slightly was that the "aliens" had heads with two eyes -- looking like sci-fi monsters (I'll say they look like monsters). So I guess someone will say, "well that's just the way it happened - chemically with aliens two eyes developed near their forehead."

 

[YoursTrue]

You did. After I had written a post (post 382) about the 'big bang' and what (if anything existed before it), you replied as follows:

I understand. I did not say it, I said other posters here implied it is possible, if I remember correctly. And of course not to mention ghosts and ufo sightings that people claim to be true.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

OK -- anything happening after that insofar as you know? Granted you think homo sapiens are still evolving (even though maybe? you think gorillas are, too? not sure...) I mean the very last second -- everything else before that, more or less, give or take a few thousand years within those 200,000 -- but is homo sapien the latest in the line? What say you, please, about the latest step in the scale?

 

[ppp]

OK -- anything happening after that insofar as you know? Granted you think homo sapiens are still evolving (even though maybe? you think gorillas are, too? not sure...) I mean the very last second -- everything else before that, more or less, give or take a few thousand years within those 200,000 -- but is homo sapien the latest in the line? What say you, please, about the latest step in the scale?

We've had several changes over the last 200,000 years. Additional blood types for less susceptibility to various diseases. The ability in adults to metabolize milk Who could produced 19% more fertile offspring. Sickle cell. Thalassemia. Lightning of skin to help with vitamin D manufacturer in Northern regions. And dozens more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be equally as honest with you, I see that there are situations in scientific reasoning about when things evolved that change upon new discovery. So what was evidently taught as true changes when something seems to change times and such. I'm sure you will have a reason for that but nonetheless even scientists can't be sure of what they determine. Later...

A new discovery of evidence that supports a different timing for the evolution or ancestry of a group does not alter reasoning or the theory of evolution. The same reasoning is applied to the new evidence. The same theory is tested with the new evidence. No scientist would reasonably claim that evidence that birds really are not descended from theropod dinosaurs, but some other group, means that the theory has failed and that evolution is not occurring.

Differences in the details of evolution are not evidence that the theory is under fire and being fast tracked for rejection. The fact that our understanding of the details of evolution changes is no different than how our understanding of the details of almost everything can and does change with time. Do you think of your parents exactly the same way you did when you were five? Why do you think that continually learning and adjusting our understanding is a flaw rather than a strength? Do all Christians enter Christianity fully versed in their understanding and completely knowledgeable? Do they all agree on points of the Bible or the religion? Or does that knowledge and understanding grow? If it grows and changes, according to the logic you are pushing here their entire philosophical basis is flawed and should be rejected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK -- anything happening after that insofar as you know? Granted you think homo sapiens are still evolving (even though maybe? you think gorillas are, too? not sure...) I mean the very last second -- everything else before that, more or less, give or take a few thousand years within those 200,000 -- but is homo sapien the latest in the line? What say you, please, about the latest step in the scale?

I grew up in a small town in the Ozarks. In 1826 it was a settlement with just a few families establishing homes. In the 1850's there was a store and a post office added. It became an official town in the 1870's. When I left there 35 years ago the population was about 1,000 people. Today it has a population over 3,000.

Was the town I grew up in the same as the settlement of 1826? Or the official town of the 1870's? There are no videos of the evolution of my hometown. There is no one living witness from pre-settlement to the present that saw it all change. The town changed over time from early birth to what is today. Small changes day by day and year by year. Mostly going unnoticed as these changes unfolded and noticeable only when looked at from a larger perspective. If I were to relate this to you and provide a body of evidence revealing that change I doubt you would raise dissent with the overall concept of the change or the facts of that change. The present town is nothing like the early settlement, though there are a few very old buildings still standing and some in use. We might argue over understanding of some of the details of that change, but that would not alter that my hometown had an origin and changed over time.

Life had an origin on this Earth. We do not know it specifically and can only hypothesize about it and gather evidence in support of those hypotheses. But there is a time when there is no evidence for life and a later a time when there is evidence. We can use validated techniques to establish timing and add resolution to that history. The natural and logical conclusion of that evidence is that life originated here sometime in the past. There is a time when that life was mostly microscopic and relatively simple in comparison to now and a continual series of evidence showing that life diversifying, changing and becoming increasingly more complex over time. I would add that some of those microorganisms or their ancestors remain today. Just as horses are still used in this world of cars, planes and rockets. The new does not mean the complete obliteration of the old.

The same story, but you would likely accept the former and it is clear you reject the latter.

 

[John53]

I grew up in a small town in the Ozarks. In 1826 it was a settlement with just a few families establishing homes. In the 1850's there was a store and a post office added. It became an official town in the 1870's. When I left there 35 years ago the population was about 1,000 people. Today it has a population over 3,000.

Was the town I grew up in the same as the settlement of 1826? Or the official town of the 1870's? There are no videos of the evolution of my hometown. There is no one living witness from pre-settlement to the present that saw it all change. The town changed over time from early birth to what is today. Small changes day by day and year by year. Mostly going unnoticed as these changes unfolded and noticeable only when looked at from a larger perspective. If I were to relate this to you and provide a body of evidence revealing that change I doubt you would raise dissent with the overall concept of the change or the facts of that change. The present town is nothing like the early settlement, though there are a few very old buildings still standing and some in use. We might argue over understanding of some of the details of that change, but that would not alter that my hometown had an origin and changed over time.

Life had an origin on this Earth. We do not know it specifically and can only hypothesize about it and gather evidence in support of those hypotheses. But there is a time when there is no evidence for life and a later a time when there is evidence. We can use validated techniques to establish timing and add resolution to that history. The natural and logical conclusion of that evidence is that life originated here sometime in the past. There is a time when that life was mostly microscopic and relatively simple in comparison to now and a continual series of evidence showing that life diversifying, changing and becoming increasingly more complex over time. I would add that some of those microorganisms or their ancestors remain today. Just as horses are still used in this world of cars, planes and rockets. The new does not mean the complete obliteration of the old.

The same story, but you would likely accept the former and it is clear you reject the latter.

The only problem with that type of argument is that their response will be... "there is intelligence involved with the evolution of towns therefore evolution needs an intelligent overseer".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only problem with that type of argument is that their response will be... "there is intelligence involved with the evolution of towns therefore evolution needs an intelligent overseer".

I agree. That is ever going to be the risk. Even though it is a flawed rejection on the basis that humans are the only evidenced intelligence in human activity. Or that the metaphor isn't about a non-human agency of origination, but rather about the change and how we can know it today without having watched it all the way through.

Given that risk, I still like them, because they give an approachable story that others can relate to in comparison while revealing the logic and reasoning of what is being done in science and even history to understand the world around us.

 

[John53]

I agree. That is ever going to be the risk. Even though it is a flawed rejection on the basis that humans are the only evidenced intelligence in human activity. Or that the metaphor isn't about a non-human agency of origination, but rather about the change and how we can know it today without having watched it all the way through.

Given that risk, I still like them, because they give an approachable story that others can relate to in comparison while revealing the logic and reasoning of what is being done in science and even history to understand the world around us.

It also seems it would place humans on the same intelligence level as Gods.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It also seems it would place humans on the same intelligence level as Gods.

That is an interesting thought and not one I had considered before. I wonder where that places tool use by other apes and that of elephants or even the mound building of termites?

Termites expressing hubris?

The idea may even have some relation to the Commandments. Especially the first one.

 

[YoursTrue]

A new discovery of evidence that supports a different timing for the evolution or ancestry of a group does not alter reasoning or the theory of evolution. The same reasoning is applied to the new evidence. The same theory is tested with the new evidence. No scientist would reasonably claim that evidence that birds really are not descended from theropod dinosaurs, but some other group, means that the theory has failed and that evolution is not occurring.

Differences in the details of evolution are not evidence that the theory is under fire and being fast tracked for rejection. The fact that our understanding of the details of evolution changes is no different than how our understanding of the details of almost everything can and does change with time. Do you think of your parents exactly the same way you did when you were five? Why do you think that continually learning and adjusting our understanding is a flaw rather than a strength? Do all Christians enter Christianity fully versed in their understanding and completely knowledgeable? Do they all agree on points of the Bible or the religion? Or does that knowledge and understanding grow? If it grows and changes, according to the logic you are pushing here their entire philosophical basis is flawed and should be rejected.

Yeah...and looking things up I see that scientists do not really know how life started, and...may never know. (no kidding )

 

[YoursTrue]

I grew up in a small town in the Ozarks. In 1826 it was a settlement with just a few families establishing homes. In the 1850's there was a store and a post office added. It became an official town in the 1870's. When I left there 35 years ago the population was about 1,000 people. Today it has a population over 3,000.

Was the town I grew up in the same as the settlement of 1826? Or the official town of the 1870's? There are no videos of the evolution of my hometown. There is no one living witness from pre-settlement to the present that saw it all change. The town changed over time from early birth to what is today. Small changes day by day and year by year. Mostly going unnoticed as these changes unfolded and noticeable only when looked at from a larger perspective. If I were to relate this to you and provide a body of evidence revealing that change I doubt you would raise dissent with the overall concept of the change or the facts of that change. The present town is nothing like the early settlement, though there are a few very old buildings still standing and some in use. We might argue over understanding of some of the details of that change, but that would not alter that my hometown had an origin and changed over time.

Life had an origin on this Earth. We do not know it specifically and can only hypothesize about it and gather evidence in support of those hypotheses. But there is a time when there is no evidence for life and a later a time when there is evidence. We can use validated techniques to establish timing and add resolution to that history. The natural and logical conclusion of that evidence is that life originated here sometime in the past. There is a time when that life was mostly microscopic and relatively simple in comparison to now and a continual series of evidence showing that life diversifying, changing and becoming increasingly more complex over time. I would add that some of those microorganisms or their ancestors remain today. Just as horses are still used in this world of cars, planes and rockets. The new does not mean the complete obliteration of the old.

The same story, but you would likely accept the former and it is clear you reject the latter.

So post offices evolved by biologic natural selection?

 

[YoursTrue]

The important question is not what chimpanzees will evolve into but what they evolved from. During most of the Miocene epoch, there were no chimpanzees, although there were many other species of apes. Obviously modern chimpanzees must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene and earlier epochs, so they must be descended from animals (specifically apes) that were not chimpanzees.

Why? Chimpanzees are not evolving?

 

[YoursTrue]

A new discovery of evidence that supports a different timing for the evolution or ancestry of a group does not alter reasoning or the theory of evolution. The same reasoning is applied to the new evidence. The same theory is tested with the new evidence. No scientist would reasonably claim that evidence that birds really are not descended from theropod dinosaurs, but some other group, means that the theory has failed and that evolution is not occurring.

Differences in the details of evolution are not evidence that the theory is under fire and being fast tracked for rejection. The fact that our understanding of the details of evolution changes is no different than how our understanding of the details of almost everything can and does change with time. Do you think of your parents exactly the same way you did when you were five? Why do you think that continually learning and adjusting our understanding is a flaw rather than a strength? Do all Christians enter Christianity fully versed in their understanding and completely knowledgeable? Do they all agree on points of the Bible or the religion? Or does that knowledge and understanding grow? If it grows and changes, according to the logic you are pushing here their entire philosophical basis is flawed and should be rejected.

While there are conjectures there is absolutely and I say absolutely no proof certainly, or physically and I repeat in the certain physical sense of evolution of natural selection.