What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

What might be a good way to demonstrate how people cling to myths, including abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is a group of hypotheses, yes, for example, it's all the rage now to claim we'd need merely one replicating RNA to help jumpstart life.

Name a replicating RNA, please.

It would probably be best to demonstrate that scientific hypotheses and evidence are myths first instead of creating a false equivalence. A demonstration you have repeatedly shown everyone you have the ability to accomplish.

Then you might realize that you needed step one before creating an illusory, false criteria for alleging scientific hypotheses are myths.

By the way, ribozymes. Enjoy that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Relationships demonstrate similarities without interposing imaginary brances for phylogenetic trees. Without DNA in fossils, all branches of the phy trees are conjectural, as you know, one reason why tree theory is in constant flux.

Phylogenetic trees are hypotheses and established based on evidence. Your conjecture is not a declaration that anyone has to follow or acknowledge, since it does nothing, but make one laugh. Some are accumulating DNA evidence by the way. Enjoy that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My comment was to a writer who sagely responded how it takes some stubborn willfulness to cling to the outdated abiogenesis theory. Don't worry, just as Pasteur demonstrated against nonsense, as biology uncovers increasing layers of cell complexity, abiogenesis claims will sound even more extreme.

It seemed like a passive aggressive means to insult people you don't have the knowledge to argue against and call them liars. For instance, there is no theory of abiogenesis. There are only hypotheses and evidence for those hypotheses. Not enough to test any of them fully, but still not what you claim.'

Is it your intention to make wild claims that you clearly cannot demonstrate or is there something more substantial yet to come?

 

[YoursTrue]

About how life came about. For the Genesis myth to be literally true God would have to be a liar.

I understand and I thank you for your opinion, not saying there are no terms used that can be misunderstood by some, for instance, each day of creation. The Bible defines the word day in various aspects. How long each day is depends upon usage. For

No, it was getting late and I was tired. There are a lot more feathered dinosaurs than you know of.

But we may have to go over the concept of evidence again. That should lead you to ask why is there only evidence for evolution and none for creationism?

There's plenty of evidence for creation. But then again, you have to figure what creation is.

 

[YoursTrue]

It seemed like a passive aggressive means to insult people you don't have the knowledge to argue against and call them liars. For instance, there is no theory of abiogenesis. There are only hypotheses and evidence for those hypotheses. Not enough to test any of them fully, but still not what you claim.'

Is it your intention to make wild claims that you clearly cannot demonstrate or is there something more substantial yet to come?

Except that the poster you are responding to makes sense. it's sad to see people like yourself refuse to reason but rather insult those that differ with them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except that the poster you are responding to makes sense. it's sad to see people like yourself refuse to reason but rather insult those that differ with them.

You mean like calling me unreasonable, because I don't agree with your doctrine? Insulting like that?

It is completely reasonable to challenge claims that are not based in fact or that are just you declaring something isn't real without showing any ability to defend your claims other than by insult.

If all you are going to do is insult me, then please leave me alone.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean like calling me unreasonable, because I don't agree with your doctrine? Insulting like that?

It is completely reasonable to challenge claims that are not based in fact or that are just you declaring something isn't real without showing any ability to defend your claims other than by insult.

If all you are going to do is insult me, then please leave me alone.

If i disagree with you does that mean to you that I'm insulting you?
Plus I don't see that the theory of evolution is based on factual evidence considering the idea of the outcome of "natural selection." But if you do, that's the way it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand and I thank you for your opinion, not saying there are no terms used that can be misunderstood by some, for instance, each day of creation. The Bible defines the word day in various aspects. How long each day is depends upon usage. For

It is not just an opinion. I can support it. But unfortunately to understand it you would have to learn at least some science.

There's plenty of evidence for creation. But then again, you have to figure what creation is.

No, there seriously is not. But then again you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. And I do not have to "figure out what creation is". That is not the way that it works the burden of proof lies upon the ones claiming that a certain belief is true.

Do you want to try to learn what is and what is not evidence again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that the poster you are responding to makes sense. it's sad to see people like yourself refuse to reason but rather insult those that differ with them.

No, he does not at all. He has a false version of evolution. What would you think of a person that claimed to refute Christianity because it is a religion that says if you believe in a guy that was nailed to a tree that you would live forever? Is that an accurate depiction of Christianity? I don't think so. It is far more accurate than the person that Dan was responding to.

 

[F1fan]

I understand and I thank you for your opinion, not saying there are no terms used that can be misunderstood by some, for instance, each day of creation. The Bible defines the word day in various aspects. How long each day is depends upon usage. For

The Old Testament myths are irrelevant. Even the Jews don't interpret them literally, and it's their book, not Christian's.

There's plenty of evidence for creation. But then again, you have to figure what creation is.

Not only is there no evidence, science is showing us all it can't be interpreted literally. Christians have done nothing but lose ground on this issue for 2000 years, and you claiming otherwise tells us something about you that isn't flattering. You should just accept science.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not just an opinion. I can support it. But unfortunately to understand it you would have to learn at least some science.

LOL, sorry, sometimes I laugh easily. Hope you are not offended. Because it's the same idea put over by those who are deep into the theory with all the proper terms.

Do you want to try to learn what is and what is not evidence again?

Again? OK, here's one definition per wikipedia, sometimes handy I agree.
"In philosophy of science, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses. Measurements of Mercury's "anomalous" orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein 's theory of general relativity." Evidence - Wikipedia
All right, while I do not understand the theory of relativity right now, I do understand the theory of evolution. In simple terms it is the idea that life came about (evolved?) from a meeting of cells which moved, burgeoned, or evolved to more complex forms over many millions of years. I'm not disputing chemical reactions. Try to understand that. I am disputing that life as we know it emerged by natural selection from a meeting (chance by falling from the sky? or emerging from water ) of a few cells until now. This is not discounting fossils, but I do not consider them proof of evolution (growth of organisms) by "natural selection." There's more to it, but! I'll leave it at that. If you want to provide more scientific terminology about evolution via natural selection, please go ahead. With, of course, that which you (and others, of course) consider as evidence of the truth of the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you didn't. Abiogenesis is a group of scientific hypotheses and evolution is a the phenomenon of phenotypic and genotypic change in living populations over time. Neither is faith-based and no one, I Mean NO ONE, has demonstrated them to be faith-based.

Has anyone demonstrated that the emergence of plants and animals were not begun by a superior, intelligence?

 

[F1fan]

Again? OK, here's one definition per wikipedia, sometimes handy I agree.
"In philosophy of science, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses. Measurements of Mercury's "anomalous" orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein 's theory of general relativity." Evidence - Wikipedia
All right, while I do not understand the theory of relativity right now, I do understand the theory of evolution. In simple terms it is the idea that life came about (evolved?) from a meeting of cells which moved, burgeoned, or evolved to more complex forms over many millions of years. I'm not disputing chemical reactions. Try to understand that. I am disputing that life as we know it emerged by natural selection from a meeting (chance by falling from the sky? or emerging from water ) of a few cells until now. This is not discounting fossils, but I do not consider them proof of evolution (growth of organisms) by "natural selection." There's more to it, but! I'll leave it at that. If you want to provide more scientific terminology about evolution via natural selection, please go ahead. With, of course, that which you (and others, of course) consider as evidence of the truth of the theory.

That is not accurate at all.

All evolution explains is how EXISTING forms of life change over time little by little as it endures pressure from the environment. For example if there was a large population of squirrels in Minnesota that were isolated from other squirrel populations, and they endured a decade of extreme winters, and only those babies with longer hair survived over that decade, most of the short hair squirrels would die off leaving only this population of mostly long haired squirrels. The long haired squirrels survived the cold and they were more successful. If this kept going on for more decades there may only be long haired squirrels in that region, and only if they were isolated from other squirrles. They could form a new species in time if there were other factors that selected certain traits.

Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of organic chemicals that are the building blocks of life. As we know abiogenesis is a hypothesis in science that is a natural explanation of how inorganic chemicals can be converted to organic chemicals. This process can actually work in nature.

Science is complex and explains much more.

Has anyone demonstrated that the emergence of plants and animals were not begun by a superior, intelligence?

Abiogenesis is actually plausible and works according to how nature functions. There are no Gods or higher intelligences known to exist, so they are not anything that matters. Besides, you creationists should be interpreting your religious books literally. If you don't bother doing that, they why bother with these types of guesses? Just accept what science reports.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, sorry, sometimes I laugh easily. Hope you are not offended. Because it's the same idea put over by those who are deep into the theory with all the proper terms.

That is because we all know something that you do not know. Why are you afraid to learn?

Again? OK, here's one definition per wikipedia, sometimes handy I agree.
"In philosophy of science, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses. Measurements of Mercury's "anomalous" orbit, for example, are seen as evidence that confirms Einstein 's theory of general relativity." Evidence - Wikipedia
All right, while I do not understand the theory of relativity right now, I do understand the theory of evolution. In simple terms it is the idea that life came about (evolved?) from a meeting of cells which moved, burgeoned, or evolved to more complex forms over many millions of years. I'm not disputing chemical reactions. Try to understand that. I am disputing that life as we know it emerged by natural selection from a meeting (chance by falling from the sky? or emerging from water ) of a few cells until now. This is not discounting fossils, but I do not consider them proof of evolution (growth of organisms) by "natural selection." There's more to it, but! I'll leave it at that. If you want to provide more scientific terminology about evolution via natural selection, please go ahead. With, of course, that which you (and others, of course) consider as evidence of the truth of the theory.

That is not bad, but this is better, and from the same source:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis"

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

It is more specific. It is also the standard that scientists use. And I would suggest that you drop the word "prove" Remember, you just have a book of myths that has been shown to be wrong time and time again. That is not evidence. The Bible is the claim and not a very reliable one.

The problem is that since you do not know what evidence is you are in no way qualified to understand what proof is.


In the sciences one must be bold enough to create a model that can be shown to be wrong. One has to be willing to put one's money where one's mouth is. A hypothesis is tested by the predictions that the model makes. If a person is too afraid to make a testable model that person cannot have any evidence by definition. Meanwhile if an observation supports a testable model that observation is evidence. That is why fossils are evidence for evolution. If you deny that you are just wrong. You could always ask what the theory predicts and what we see. Those would be valid questions. But if you deny evidence you are the one that has to prove that it is not evidence. You cannot just deny it. If one denies evidence and refuses to support that denial that is the same as admitting that one is wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do age have to understanding the Genesis Creation?

Understanding the Bible’s Creation come in 3 camps

1. Those who interpret Genesis literally.
2. Those who interpret Genesis metaphorically or symbolic like allegories or even like parables.
3. And those who are skeptical of one or the other or both.

I used to be point 1, but i wasn’t what you call a creationist. I simply believed in Genesis without attempting to mix it with “history” or with “science”, when I was a believer of the Bible.

What I mean, I didn’t there were groups called “Creationism” and I wasn’t aware of people calling themselves “creationists” before 2003.

It was in 2003 (I was 37 at that time), when I heard of Creationism for the first time I joined an Internet forum. It was a forum for computer programmers, but they have sections for discussions on books, tv & films, music, politics and of course, a section on religion.

It was here that I also learned about Evolution too. I heard of mutations and Evolution, but as my knowledge in biology didn’t expand beyond Year 9 high school, I didn’t know anything about Evolution and Natural Selection, before 2003. I didn’t even know who was Charles Darwin, before joining this forum.

By this time, I was already leaning towards agnosticism. My doubt in the Bible first occurred back in 2000, but not because of Genesis or anything about the Old Testament. It was the New Testament that my view started to change and started to doubt, more specifically “the sign” in Matthew 1.

But I think you heard of my story before.

Anyway, as I learned a bit more about creationism and about Evolution, that before the end of 2003, I have formed my own opinions on the subject. I came to realization that the Genesis Creation & Flood didn’t happen as I did more research, not only with the Bible itself, but with general history. Only then did I started to doubt the Old Testament too.

Three years afterward (2006), I joined this forum.

I would like to say something here: according to what I read, "in science... A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories." Do you agree with this explanation of the difference between a law in science and a theory? Why Isn't Evolution Considered a Law? | Evolution FAQ

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like to say something here: according to what I read, "in science... A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories." Do you agree with this explanation of the difference between a law in science and a theory? Why Isn't Evolution Considered a Law? | Evolution FAQ

No. That is not right. Theories, if anything outrank laws. You could say that law is something that is observed to be true under certain circumstances all of the time. And a theory is something that has been observed to be true all of the time, is testable,, and has an explanation. Your source says pretty much the same thing. By the way not all laws have mathematical equations.

And technically Newtons' Law of Universal Gravitation has been refuted. There are times when it fails. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is a theory of gravity. In fact it is sometimes referred to in that way. We do not know if it works on the quantum level, but everywhere else it does. So far. And scientists hope that some day it will be replaced by a more accurate theory with an even greater range.

But at any rate in the sciences one first needs a testable model. What is a model of creationism and how would you test it? Remember, no model, no evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I would like to say something here: according to what I read, "in science... A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement."

Theory is a comprehensive set of explanations that explain what the phenomena and how the phenomena works.

A law is a very brief logical statement, using expressed in the form of one equation or more.

A law is usually part of the theory, not separate from the theory.

As to your example of laws of Newton, you don't seem to understand they are all lay out in the single text, his book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687), which is his theory on both the Laws of Motion and Law of Universal Gravitation.

A law is only a very small portion in the theory.

Beside that, a law - along with the rest of the theory - are not true until they are tested...and only the ways to objectively test a theory (which would include the explanations, equations & predictions) with observations of evidence or the observations of the experiments.

You really don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Why do you insist on talking on subject that you clearly don't know and don't understand much of physics or biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's plenty of evidence for creation.

Myea... creationists keep claiming that.
None however have ever presented such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Plus I don't see that the theory of evolution is based on factual evidence considering the idea of the outcome of "natural selection."

The only reason for that is because you refuse to learn what evolution theory actually says.

I mean, I can't even count the amount of times that you have said / asked / implied things like "if evolution is true, then why don't we see X and Y", while seeing X and Y would actually disprove evolution.

That's how deep your ignorance of evolution runs. So obviously, if that is the extent of how warped your idea of evolution is, it's kind of totally within expectations that you wouldn't recognize evidence for the actual theory of evolution if it came up and hit you upside the head.............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All right, while I do not understand the theory of relativity right now, I do understand the theory of evolution.

You do not. You show in every post that you do not.

In simple terms it is the idea that life came about

BZZZZZZT!!

There you go. First sentence in and you are already mistaken.
Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life. It only deals with processes that already existing life is subject to.

How many times have people pointed this out to you?
Why do you repeat it?
Why do you insist on being wrong?

(evolved?) from a meeting of cells which moved, burgeoned, or evolved to more complex forms over many millions of years. I'm not disputing chemical reactions. Try to understand that. I am disputing that life as we know it emerged by natural selection from a meeting (chance by falling from the sky? or emerging from water ) of a few cells until now.

Then your argument is with abiogenesis, not with evolution.

But let's be serious here. You don't buy into evolution either. You don't agree that humans share ancestors with chimps, cats, dogs, rabbits, birds and ultimately every other living thing - like the genetic record demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt.

This is not discounting fossils, but I do not consider them proof of evolution (growth of organisms) by "natural selection."

Good, but for all the wrong reasons.
There is no "proof" in ANY scientific theory. Only evidence.
Evidence can support an idea or it can falsify an idea.

Scientific theories can't be "proven". They can only be supported or disproven.