What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[rational experiences]

Has anyone ever made any sense out of this stuff? I tried this time because it was relatively short. No luck.

Science men occultists do huge reactive blasting conversions inside their machine.

In pretence pretend they claim I'm the thinker for god I also do a machine God scenario in my head.

I study.
I tell stories.
I theme.

I know by my human understanding the sun huge reactive blasted earth. Gave it light. The path light historic past...not now.

I also know dinosaurs died on earth by huge earth reactive blast attacks. Past historic.

Why thesis human choice only.... Every decision human choice only....is via I think what is evolution is b.s. as a God human man term. As his theses are for reactive machines blastings.

If you said a year is 12...numbers get bandied around anywhere by your choice your reasoning.

If light is 24 hour constant then light is 365 days of the year too. Is not a theory to use 12 in calculus just by the use I can think.

 

[DNB]

Demonstrating that man was made in God's image would also falsify at least human evolution.

Yes, you are absolutely correct on this aspect, that deducing the image of God in man would dispel the belief that man is solely a secular being. And, also, necessitate the existence of God, which would there introduce countless implications as to the either the extent of evolution, or if there's any facet of life at all that evolved from one species or genus to another.


...man is clearly a spiritual being, which is why there are countless religions, worship centers, religious edifices, shrines, altars, temples, etc... all throughout the world, ever since the history of man began. And that spirit must have had a source, for it did not come from stardust or protoplasm. Thus, God exists, which is clearly evidenced by the image and character that man portrays - and, thus, evolution is patently put into question, if not rejected altogether.

 

[Heyo]

Creationism is dead...has been for a while.

Tell that to Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and Matt Powell and the Discovery Institute and the JWs and ... you get the gist. They may be brain dead but they are still moving.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you are absolutely correct on this aspect, that deducing the image of God in man would dispel the belief that man is solely a secular being. And, also, necessitate the existence of God, which would there introduce countless implications as to the either the extent of evolution, or if there's any facet of life at all that evolved from one species or genus to another.


...man is clearly a spiritual being, which is why there are countless religions, worship centers, religious edifices, shrines, altars, temples, etc... all throughout the world, ever since the history of man began. And that spirit must have had a source, for it did not come from stardust or protoplasm. Thus, God exists, which is clearly evidenced by the image and character that man portrays - and, thus, evolution is patently put into question, if not rejected altogether.

Your jump to a conclusion is not justified.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've said it for years now....they really don't have any new arguments. So apparently the best they can do is just rehash old (at times very old) failed arguments and see who's willing to engage.

Creationism is dead...has been for a while.

I'm interested, but also disinterested. I'm not sure I want to see the same old nonsense paraded out in defiance of logic, reason and evidence yet again.

Directed mutations. Refuted.

Irreducible complexity. Logically impossible to determine. Meaningless.

Conflating the theory of evolution with the phenomena of evolution.

Conflating the origin of life with the evolution of life.

Etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Tell that to Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and Matt Powell and the Discovery Institute and the JWs and ... you get the gist. They may be brain dead but they are still moving.

Science is like a fine meal. You can't have the main course without some vegetables.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, you are absolutely correct on this aspect, that deducing the image of God in man would dispel the belief that man is solely a secular being. And, also, necessitate the existence of God, which would there introduce countless implications as to the either the extent of evolution, or if there's any facet of life at all that evolved from one species or genus to another.


...man is clearly a spiritual being, which is why there are countless religions, worship centers, religious edifices, shrines, altars, temples, etc... all throughout the world, ever since the history of man began. And that spirit must have had a source, for it did not come from stardust or protoplasm.

Why can't all the various gods and all the various religions have come from human creativity? We humans are very smart and very creative. The ancients did not have the knowledge we have today, but they wanted answers.

Thus, God exists, which is clearly evidenced by the image and character that man portrays - and, thus, evolution is patently put into question, if not rejected altogether.

The "man is created in God's image" idea is not evidenced with facts. Evolution is, and that is why it is a highly successful theory in science. Evolution explains a lot of what we see happening on this planet. The Bible exlpains nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "man is created in God's image" idea is not evidenced with facts. Evolution is, and that is why it is a highly successful theory in science. Evolution explains a lot of what we see happening on this planet. The Bible exlpains nothing.

If anything the Bible and other holy books are prime examples that God is created in man's image. If you look at the God of the New and the Old Testament there is a marked improvement in God The Sequel. He is still all to human, just as the first one was, but he is not as apt to kill someone for the smallest of offenses. God got more civilized as man got more civilized.

 

[wellwisher]

The way you falsify evolution is to point out the fact the theory does not start at the beginnings of life; abiogenesis. Rather the theory starts later in the process; replicators, which are templates that can store information and make copies. Defects in the copying process allows for change; mutations, even though proof reading enzymes have also evolved to make sure defects are minimized close to zero; toward determinism. Why would those proof reader enzymes evolve and ruin the theory by moving evolution away from the assumption of casino science?

The analogy of starting the theory late is meeting a new person. The data we will first collect is based on our real time observations of that new person. This data cannot take into account things that may have happened before you met; past, that helped to shape who they are today.

If someone came off a bad relationship, they may become more defensive than they normally would or always had been. Since you lack that earlier data, you may assume they have always been standoff-ish and a little grouchy. If the group forms a consensus then that will become dogma. Consensus means opinion. Truth can be true with one set of experiments is beyond any consensus. Opinions can be false and still be a valid opinion, while a group of bad opinions can form a consensus.

The reason the new person may appear to be who they show, may also have do with them trying to reinvent themselves, so they can overcome behavior patterns. Evolution has the same problem in that what appears to be, may not be what actually is, since we lack the early history in terms of the molecular evolution toward the replicators. The random approach, where anything is probable is also true in the new person example, where we lack important formative data, to show a vector aligned with the past to the future.

Hundreds of millions of year had passed before the age of the replicators. The current theory assume that past can be ignored, and what we see after that is the one and only true character of evolution. I find that hard to believe, since I am skeptical of done deals in science. Science is a work in progress. There is religion in science that worships a strange god of dice and cards, which are both manmade and not natural objects. This religion allows you to win a jackpot, which is another tell; blind faith in the math of black boxes.

I can start the story of evolution with water, and how water was the solvent in which natural replicators evolved. There is a causal connection to water. The original, to the modern replicators, can only work in water. They are paralyzed in all other solvents. If we ignore that, which was there before replicators; water, then the theory is half baked and should be taken with a grain of salt. This is not the final form. I

t is good that religion did not cave to the politics of hard baked and kept the discussion open, so the theory can evolve away from the limits of casino science; ignores the past. Nature evolved proof reader enzymes to make life and replicators more deterministic, as religions have always assumed.

 

[Yerda]

We don't talk much about how narrow and operationally weird the notion of falsification is. It seems like pop philosophy that takes the idea to be the pinnacle of scientific endeavour but it doesn't match reality. A theory has to be testable in principle but there are no scientific hypothesis that can't survive a negative result by reworking the assumptions of the theory.

Also, evolution isn't a single hypothesis (the Theory of Evolution isn't a single theory). It's much more like a landscape or better yet a framework for understanding the relationship of living things. As of yet there isn't a unifying principle like we have with gravitation. It's a massive hodge-podge of different explanatory tools that just happen to work. It might be the case that evolutionary biology never comes together into a single coherent subject with universal rules.

The way you falsify evolution is to point out the fact the theory does not start at the beginnings of life; abiogenesis. Rather the theory starts later in the process; replicators, which are templates that can store information and make copies. Defects in the copying process allows for change; mutations, even though proof reading enzymes have also evolved to make sure defects are minimized close to zero; toward determinism. Why would those proof reader enzymes evolve and ruin the theory by moving evolution away from the assumption of casino science?

It's much more likely that the phenomena that characterise biological evolution were present before life arose. What I mean is that variation, selection, descent etc can occur on non-living things. RNA chains evolve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The way you falsify evolution is to point out the fact the theory does not start at the beginnings of life; abiogenesis. Rather the theory starts later in the process; replicators, which are templates that can store information and make copies. Defects in the copying process allows for change; mutations, even though proof reading enzymes have also evolved to make sure defects are minimized close to zero; toward determinism. Why would those proof reader enzymes evolve and ruin the theory by moving evolution away from the assumption of casino science?

The analogy of starting the theory late is meeting a new person. The data we will first collect is based on our real time observations of that new person. This data cannot take into account things that may have happened before you met; past, that helped to shape who they are today.

If someone came off a bad relationship, they may become more defensive than they normally would or always had been. Since you lack that earlier data, you may assume they have always been standoff-ish and a little grouchy. If the group forms a consensus then that will become dogma. Consensus means opinion. Truth can be true with one set of experiments is beyond any consensus. Opinions can be false and still be a valid opinion, while a group of bad opinions can form a consensus.

The reason the new person may appear to be who they show, may also have do with them trying to reinvent themselves, so they can overcome behavior patterns. Evolution has the same problem in that what appears to be, may not be what actually is, since we lack the early history in terms of the molecular evolution toward the replicators. The random approach, where anything is probable is also true in the new person example, where we lack important formative data, to show a vector aligned with the past to the future.

Hundreds of millions of year had passed before the age of the replicators. The current theory assume that past can be ignored, and what we see after that is the one and only true character of evolution. I find that hard to believe, since I am skeptical of done deals in science. Science is a work in progress. There is religion in science that worships a strange god of dice and cards, which are both manmade and not natural objects. This religion allows you to win a jackpot, which is another tell; blind faith in the math of black boxes.

I can start the story of evolution with water, and how water was the solvent in which natural replicators evolved. There is a causal connection to water. The original, to the modern replicators, can only work in water. They are paralyzed in all other solvents. If we ignore that, which was there before replicators; water, then the theory is half baked and should be taken with a grain of salt. This is not the final form. I

t is good that religion did not cave to the politics of hard baked and kept the discussion open, so the theory can evolve away from the limits of casino science; ignores the past. Nature evolved proof reader enzymes to make life and replicators more deterministic, as religions have always assumed.

Why do you think that matters? All I could see in that post was incoherent rambling.
But at any rate, no. We do not need to know the source of the first living organism. It is enough to simply know that there was one..

 

[Aupmanyav]

We do not need to know the source of the first living organism. It is enough to simply know that there was one.

In time, we will know that too.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We don't talk much about how narrow and operationally weird the notion of falsification is. It seems like pop philosophy that takes the idea to be the pinnacle of scientific endeavour

The requirement that a hypothesis be falsifiable is to filter out the metaphysical 'not-even-wrong' claims. It requires that we limit our claims to those that can manifest empirically. Thus, claims about prayer working are scientific (falsifiable) because they are testable, and if wrong, can be demonstrated to be wrong, whereas claims about heaven are metaphysical claims that cannot be said to be correct or incorrect, hence, not-even-wrong. If a claim about reality is not expected to manifest as evidence even in principle, then it cannot be called scientific, it is unfalsifiable, and it can be disregarded.

deducing the image of God in man would dispel the belief that man is solely a secular being.

If one tries to guess what a deity is like looking at mankind, then that is literally making that god in man's image.

man is clearly a spiritual being

The word spiritual probably means something different to you than me. Spirituality has nothing to do with spirits and everything to do with a psychological response to life and the world in which one experiences a sense of connection to nature manifest as a warm feeling, a sense of awe and mystery, and often, a sense of gratitude. This is frequently mistaken as a message from some external agent. There are several examples from history.

The ancient Greeks did this with the muses. They didn't have a concept for the mind being creative. Creative inspiration was not understood as a product of the mind, but rather, as a received message from a creative muse whispering silently into one's brain.

Likewise with dreams, who most understand to be products of their own minds, but others mistake as messages being delivered to them.

And likewise with internal moral conflicts, which are often depicted as a devil and an angel sitting on one's shoulder and arguing through one's ears.

These are all examples of people confusing thoughts originating in their mind as evidence of some external agent communicating with them. This is the same with the spiritual intuition, except that many have not discovered that their apprehensions that they call God or spirits are endogenous psychological states.

which is why there are countless religions, worship centers, religious edifices, shrines, altars, temples

Those exist because many people understand the spiritual experience as implying the existence of spirits. They are mistaking the products of their own minds for the experience of external agents. They are not evidence that man is not another animal that also evolved from the same original ancestral population, and they are not evidence for a deity or anything else outside of imagination.

that spirit must have had a source, for it did not come from stardust or protoplasm.

There is no spirit, just an intuition, and its source is the brain.

Would the judgement of an atheist be accepted with regards to spiritual matters when he has no knowledge whatsoever of such matters even denying God exists?

For me, it's the other way around. Why should a theist's unexamined judgment about the significance of his inner life be trusted. Supernaturalism distracts from authentic spirituality, which is rooted in an experience of connection with nature. The theist is preoccupied with imagined agents and realms, and therefore doesn't have the same connection to nature as the naturalist.

When I was a Christian, we were taught that matter was a base substance, that the universe was a passing phase slated for destruction, that there was a purer, better, supernatural realm upon which our gaze was to be firmly set. The world was described as a place to not be a part of. Like "the world," "the flesh" was deemed inferior to the spirit trapped inside it for now. Man is completely alienated from his world with this vision of it.

But that religion wasn't done. It also taught that one's own mind was the enemy, that doubt and cognitive dissonance were sin and the voice of a demon trying to steal one's soul to hell. People often lived life as if at a bus top, waiting to be shuttled off to someplace else, somewhere better than the world. Can one imagine more violence done to the spiritual experience as I have described it?

Yet here you are wondering what an atheist can have to offer in matters of spirituality. How about a definition of an authentic spiritual experience, where it comes from, and what it means? What does a theist add to that but spirits, which, as I explained, detracts from the spiritual experience and deflects it to thoughts about spirits and their realms.

My wife is a spiritual woman and an ardent gardener, where she spends time with the soil, the worms, the birds and butterflies, and thoughts of roots, growth, sunlight, and mother earth. If she were a Christian, she'd probably be thinking of God and heaven or something similar instead of her garden.

The way you falsify evolution is to point out the fact the theory does not start at the beginnings of life; abiogenesis.

The fact that the theory of biological evolution begins after the completion of evolution to the first living cell population - chemical evolution - does not falsify it, since it does not demonstrate it to be incorrect.

t is good that religion did not cave to the politics of hard baked and kept the discussion open, so the theory can evolve away from the limits of casino science; ignores the past. Nature evolved proof reader enzymes to make life and replicators more deterministic, as religions have always assumed.

The religion I belonged to wasn't very deterministic. It taught that man has free will and that miracles were possible.

The religions have no input into the sciences including evolutionary science, and there is no discussion between the scientific community and the religions or anybody else. Creationists may claim that the debate continues, but not with the scientific community.

And if you think that the theory of evolution is casino science, your understanding is incomplete. The random element is only part of the theory, and manifests in genetic variation. Natural selection is directed, not random.

 

[F1fan]

The way you falsify evolution is to point out the fact the theory does not start at the beginnings of life; abiogenesis. Rather the theory starts later in the process; replicators, which are templates that can store information and make copies. Defects in the copying process allows for change; mutations, even though proof reading enzymes have also evolved to make sure defects are minimized close to zero; toward determinism. Why would those proof reader enzymes evolve and ruin the theory by moving evolution away from the assumption of casino science?

Casino science? Are you saying God doesn't play dice with the universe? Where do birth defects come from? How about diseases that are fatal to children? The universe does play dice and if there's a God behind it (of which there is no evidence, nor even a credible argument) it plays dice too.

The analogy of starting the theory late is meeting a new person. The data we will first collect is based on our real time observations of that new person. This data cannot take into account things that may have happened before you met; past, that helped to shape who they are today.

This analogy is too late. Maybe it would have worked in the 19th century.

If someone came off a bad relationship, they may become more defensive than they normally would or always had been. Since you lack that earlier data, you may assume they have always been standoff-ish and a little grouchy. If the group forms a consensus then that will become dogma. Consensus means opinion. Truth can be true with one set of experiments is beyond any consensus. Opinions can be false and still be a valid opinion, while a group of bad opinions can form a consensus.

The reason the new person may appear to be who they show, may also have do with them trying to reinvent themselves, so they can overcome behavior patterns. Evolution has the same problem in that what appears to be, may not be what actually is, since we lack the early history in terms of the molecular evolution toward the replicators. The random approach, where anything is probable is also true in the new person example, where we lack important formative data, to show a vector aligned with the past to the future.

Hundreds of millions of year had passed before the age of the replicators. The current theory assume that past can be ignored, and what we see after that is the one and only true character of evolution. I find that hard to believe, since I am skeptical of done deals in science. Science is a work in progress. There is religion in science that worships a strange god of dice and cards, which are both manmade and not natural objects. This religion allows you to win a jackpot, which is another tell; blind faith in the math of black boxes.

I can start the story of evolution with water, and how water was the solvent in which natural replicators evolved. There is a causal connection to water. The original, to the modern replicators, can only work in water. They are paralyzed in all other solvents. If we ignore that, which was there before replicators; water, then the theory is half baked and should be taken with a grain of salt. This is not the final form. I

t is good that religion did not cave to the politics of hard baked and kept the discussion open, so the theory can evolve away from the limits of casino science; ignores the past. Nature evolved proof reader enzymes to make life and replicators more deterministic, as religions have always assumed.

Except science doesn't ignore the past. So your analogy is that evolution is blind to data and can be duped?

Why not just cite experts in biology and what they report?

 

[Alien826]

Adding a general comment, which is not original to me I hasten to state.

Creationists seem to think that if they can somehow show that the theory of Evolution is incorrect, then everyone will immediately adopt their beliefs as fact. Nothing could be further from the truth!

 

[F1fan]

Adding a general comment, which is not original to me I hasten to state.

Creationists seem to think that if they can somehow show that the theory of Evolution is incorrect, then everyone will immediately adopt their beliefs as fact. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Right. Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute are not science labs, they are rented space in office buildings. They do no science work at all. All they do is write disinformation about science in a way that looks professional and authoritative. They produce blatant fraud. These are fraudulent organizations that aim to create distrust of science to certain Christians, and make money from them. Talk about a toxic relationship.

That's religion at work. Trust at your own peril.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Adding a general comment, which is not original to me I hasten to state.

Creationists seem to think that if they can somehow show that the theory of Evolution is incorrect, then everyone will immediately adopt their beliefs as fact. Nothing could be further from the truth!

I think of it as the Default Paradigm. Creationism is not science and fails in its desire to be seen as science. The only thing left for someone supporting creationism as the explanation for the diversity of life and the observed relationships is to attack straw man versions of science in the hopes to keep the gaps alive so that a personal doctrine can be installed by default.

The recent viral spread of directed mutation or "natural genetic engineering" is one flaccid means to that end. Never mind that it does not exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right. Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute are not science labs, they are rented space in office buildings. They do no science work at all. All they do is write disinformation about science in a way that looks professional and authoritative. They produce blatant fraud. These are fraudulent organizations that aim to create distrust of science to certain Christians, and make money from them. Talk about a toxic relationship.

That's religion at work. Trust at your own peril.

They are doubt generators. Gap builders. Science is not absolute so they exploit that observance to logic and reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The way you falsify evolution is to point out the fact the theory does not start at the beginnings of life; abiogenesis. Rather the theory starts later in the process; replicators, which are templates that can store information and make copies. Defects in the copying process allows for change; mutations, even though proof reading enzymes have also evolved to make sure defects are minimized close to zero; toward determinism. Why would those proof reader enzymes evolve and ruin the theory by moving evolution away from the assumption of casino science?

The analogy of starting the theory late is meeting a new person. The data we will first collect is based on our real time observations of that new person. This data cannot take into account things that may have happened before you met; past, that helped to shape who they are today.

If someone came off a bad relationship, they may become more defensive than they normally would or always had been. Since you lack that earlier data, you may assume they have always been standoff-ish and a little grouchy. If the group forms a consensus then that will become dogma. Consensus means opinion. Truth can be true with one set of experiments is beyond any consensus. Opinions can be false and still be a valid opinion, while a group of bad opinions can form a consensus.

The reason the new person may appear to be who they show, may also have do with them trying to reinvent themselves, so they can overcome behavior patterns. Evolution has the same problem in that what appears to be, may not be what actually is, since we lack the early history in terms of the molecular evolution toward the replicators. The random approach, where anything is probable is also true in the new person example, where we lack important formative data, to show a vector aligned with the past to the future.

Hundreds of millions of year had passed before the age of the replicators. The current theory assume that past can be ignored, and what we see after that is the one and only true character of evolution. I find that hard to believe, since I am skeptical of done deals in science. Science is a work in progress. There is religion in science that worships a strange god of dice and cards, which are both manmade and not natural objects. This religion allows you to win a jackpot, which is another tell; blind faith in the math of black boxes.

I can start the story of evolution with water, and how water was the solvent in which natural replicators evolved. There is a causal connection to water. The original, to the modern replicators, can only work in water. They are paralyzed in all other solvents. If we ignore that, which was there before replicators; water, then the theory is half baked and should be taken with a grain of salt. This is not the final form. I

t is good that religion did not cave to the politics of hard baked and kept the discussion open, so the theory can evolve away from the limits of casino science; ignores the past. Nature evolved proof reader enzymes to make life and replicators more deterministic, as religions have always assumed.

The theory is not about the origins of life, so using the origins of life to falsify it does not make any sense.

Disease theory is not about gravity, so using gravity to falsify it is sort of the equivalent of what you offer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In my opinion, anyone that has a legitimate interest in falsifying evolution should start with a sound understanding of the science, theories and the state of current knowledge and understanding of the theory of evolution and the evidence.

Biased love of the controversies in science in the sad hope that one side might further the cause is not an objective position. That is just doubt and gap perpetuation built on straw men and fallacious tactics.

If one is going to use something like directed mutation as the basis for a creationist position, then I expect those people to know and understand what that means. I never see that. I never see anything like that from the creation side of the argument--if you can call that position an argument.

In instances like that, it is my experience that you mostly see people that don't understand the basics or the scope of what they are trying to use as a magic bullet to stop something they don't understand at all.