What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

In time, we will know that too.

Possibly yes, possibly no. It is not that abiogenesis is impossibly hard to find the answer for. Rather it is that there appear to be too many answers. There may be multiple routes to the first cell and we may never know which route was taken.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Agreed. I have argued that the existing evidence for evolution rules out the Abrahamic deity, and the argument is not based in the theory having been proven by that evidence. The argument allows for falsification of the theory. The problem for the Abrahamic theist is that his god is already ruled out by that evidence even if it has to be reinterpreted in the light of a falsifying find, which could only be understood as the work of a deceptive intelligent designer who went to great pains to deceive man. The most likely candidate for this role isn't even a deity, and if the intelligent designer were supernatural, it's not that god. Their devil, however, would not be ruled out by identifying the deceit.

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.

Agreed again, but how many such people are creationists? People who get a good education in the sciences do so because they enjoy and respect the sciences, like you and me. As kids we had chemistry sets and erector sets. We sat glued to the TV for space missions and watched the science for children shows. We liked RadioShack and its science kits. Later, we subscribed to Scientific American or Sky & Telescope. We ate up the biology, chemistry and physics in high school. Many chose the sciences professionally. Most continued reading science after graduation, which is where I learned the science I didn't learn in my formal education (earth science, quantum science, cosmology). I still watch everything on Nova that's scientific. And How The Universe Works.

Such people are very rarely creationists. What you usually get are clownish caricatures like Ham and Hovind and their Internet disciples making these arguments, which have no chance of persuading a scientifically literate critical thinker, but instead, do the opposite when the scientific incompetence of the apologist becomes evident. I occasionally refer to the concept of ethos in the philosophy of argumentation (rhetoric), which is the metamessage the speaker or writer sends along with his explicit argument (logos) - does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like. If your ethos is shot, you have little chance of accomplishing anything but your own rejection whatever you say.

Possibly yes, possibly no. It is not that abiogenesis is impossibly hard to find the answer for. Rather it is that there appear to be too many answers. There may be multiple routes to the first cell and we may never know which route was taken.

Agreed for a third time. It is sufficient to demonstrate that such paths are consistent with known chemistry, meaning that the process is possible. There is no duty to show that any given path that works was the one that led to LUCA. This is analogous to human evolution, where we may never elucidate exactly which extinct hominids were ancestors and which were branches from man's line of descent that died out. Creationists will argue that the theory is unsound for lack of these pathways, but that is incorrect. The theory doesn't specify them, just their mechanism.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.



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



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.



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.



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



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 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.



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.

Spirituality with regards to the Holy Books are the virtues such as love, justice, wisdom, trustworthiness, truthfulness compassion, forgiveness, courtesy and things like upright character and deeds of service to humanity such as helping the poor. That is the essence of what the Prophets teach. These traits are essential for our daily lives such as trustworthiness which the entire world economy depends upon in its financial institutions such as banks etc.

The purpose of religion is the transformation of the individual and society towards a higher standard and quality of life. When religion the spiritual virtues are replaced by superstitions and unintelligent dogma. Everything in this world has a life cycle. Nature has seasons. Religion has similar stages such as spring, summer, autumn and winter.

Although a religion may exist in name outwardly its life force may be spent. It no longer exerts a spiritual influence anymore as it used to. That is when God renews religion. All religions speak of a new teaching to come in due time.

So what many do reject is not the virtues which is the essence of religion but it’s unintelligent dogmas. Also, I don’t think we can entirely rule out the possibility of the existence of God as nobody knows everything there is to know.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Spirituality with regards to the Holy Books are the virtues such as love, justice, wisdom, trustworthiness, truthfulness compassion, forgiveness, courtesy and things like upright character and deeds of service to humanity such as helping the poor. That is the essence of what the Prophets teach.

We do that better in humanism. Holy books add nothing, and its versions of things such as love, justice, truth, compassion, and forgiveness are often not those of humanism, and never better.

The purpose of religion is the transformation of the individual and society towards a higher standard and quality of life.

Humanism does that much better as well.

How many times have I made a comment like that to you? You've never rebutted it before and won't now. You've never tried. You've never mentioned that you saw it. I assume that you disagree, but you have no argument. And why? Because the statement is correct. If it were wrong, you could demonstrate where and how, just as I do when you make analogous claims for religion, which you also disregard. The sine qua non of a correct statement is that it cannot be successfully rebutted, and the sine qua non of an incorrect one is that it can.

virtues which is the essence of religion

Disagree. The religion I know best and which has the most influence in the West is Christianity. The essential message there is obedience and submission. Sure, it's adorned with flowery language much like your own faith, but in the end, the religion comes down to submit or burn. Fail there, die in "sin," and all of that love and justice and mercy goes right down the drain.

I don’t think we can entirely rule out the possibility of the existence of God as nobody knows everything there is to know.

Some gods have been ruled out including the Abrahamic god because of its description, which is logically incoherent and contradicts empirical findings, but not non-interventionalist gods like the deist god - the kind that don't come to earth or answer prayers or perform miracles or send messengers. Still, what does it matter if such a deity exists or existed? We can just ignore that possibility.

You also cannot rule out vampires and leprechauns. You can only do what every atheist does regarding gods - reject insufficiently evidenced claims that they exist and go on with life as if they don't. That is how you approach vampires and leprechauns, but not gods. The empiricist approaches them all that way.

 

[F1fan]

Spirituality with regards to the Holy Books are the virtues such as love, justice, wisdom, trustworthiness, truthfulness compassion, forgiveness, courtesy and things like upright character and deeds of service to humanity such as helping the poor. That is the essence of what the Prophets teach. These traits are essential for our daily lives such as trustworthiness which the entire world economy depends upon in its financial institutions such as banks etc.

Humans acted this way in tribes and social groups well before any holy books were written. This suggests the books were written to codify the natural social behaviors, and these behaviors were successful because they helped groups survive. The behavior came first, the books came second. Gods were a way to establish an authority among the leaders.

The purpose of religion is the transformation of the individual and society towards a higher standard and quality of life. When religion the spiritual virtues are replaced by superstitions and unintelligent dogma. Everything in this world has a life cycle. Nature has seasons. Religion has similar stages such as spring, summer, autumn and winter.

Early civilized people relied on the trial and error of rules that were passed down to the next generation. So sure, the religious rules were created and passed down to ensure stability and survival. No gods are known to exist.

Although a religion may exist in name outwardly its life force may be spent. It no longer exerts a spiritual influence anymore as it used to. That is when God renews religion. All religions speak of a new teaching to come in due time.

We know where this sales pitch is going. Good luck trying to claim that Bahai is a modern, renewed religion while it includes bigotry and intolerance of gays. This is an obsolete prejudice in the 21st century.

So what many do reject is not the virtues which is the essence of religion but it’s unintelligent dogmas. Also, I don’t think we can entirely rule out the possibility of the existence of God as nobody knows everything there is to know.

I suggest reason is vastly superior to any religious dogma. Humanism works in ways that religion, like Bahai, fails.

 

[gnostic]

Although a religion may exist in name outwardly its life force may be spent. It no longer exerts a spiritual influence anymore as it used to. That is when God renews religion. All religions speak of a new teaching to come in due time.

If religions are just to remain “religion”, then that not so much a problem.

But religion also often interfere with other spheres of humanities, such as social and cultural interaction, such as politics, laws and education.

And when you compare religious influences in these areas, they often fall short, because religions relied too much on customs and dogma.

Humanities and humans are lot more complex than religion, and cannot be defined by religious rules.

Don’t get me wrong, religions have its places in history, and in ancient times, religions were something that help civilizations to get together as communities with shared goals.

There are indeed some positive aspects to religion to the societies, but history have shown that there have been negative aspects, which lead to biases, brutal persecution, oppression and corruption, especially when religious people get hands on powers, political power, legal power, military power.

There is nothing worse than when people use religion to oppress and persecute people. Politics plus religion have given religion bad name.

Religions are not immune to corruption.

 

[gnostic]

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

Evolution mean changes to the population of organisms, where the changes are passed down genetically to descendant population.

Evolution is about biodiversity, not about the origin of first life.

How life first arose, is one of several models of Abiogenesis, which are still hypothetical, thus Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.

As @Subduction Zone said, there are number of different models to Abiogenesis, but biologists and biochemists currently don't know which of these models kick started life on Earth.

A large part of Abiogenesis that have in common with every models of Abiogenesis, is the origins of organic matters or biological matters, eg the cells; and cells are made of different types biological compounds and biological molecules (often called biological macromolecules, "macromolecule" meaning "large molecule"), the most essential ones being proteins, nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA), carbohydrates (like polysaccharides, eg starches, celluloses) and lipids.

So basically, Abiogenesis is the studies of these biological macromolecules, and studies of cells.

Creationists (and other biology illiterates) have the tendencies to confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis.

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Evolution is a "falsifiable" scientific theory.

Falsifiable means the ability to test and to refute a model (a model is set of explanation and prediction that are part of hypothesis or scientific theory). Another word for falsifiability is testability and refuteability.

But since evidence and tests have verified Evolution for biodiversity, Evolution is a "TESTED" scientific theory.

To give another example. The theory of gravity - both Newton's theory and Einstein's theory (General Relativity) - is a falsifiable scientific theory, because it is testable, but they are also "science" because they are tested theory.

So what would falsify Evolution? So far, there are no evidence that refute Evolution.

If you can show evidence that refute and falsify Evolution, then the burden of proof is yours. Do you have such evidence?

Do you have alternative hypothesis that explain better than the theory of Evolution, in regarding to biodiversity of life?

If you do have alternative, then present it.

I hoped that you are not talking about Young or Old Earth Creationism? Or Intelligent Design creationism?

They are not scientific alternatives, because YEC, OEC & ID are "not falsifiable", they untestable and untested, that you cannot even call them "hypothesis".

One of requirement for concept to qualify as a hypothesis, is that it must be "falsifiable", and YEC & ID don't meet that basic requirement.

 

[wellwisher]

Possibly yes, possibly no. It is not that abiogenesis is impossibly hard to find the answer for. Rather it is that there appear to be too many answers. There may be multiple routes to the first cell and we may never know which route was taken.

Cells only work in water

Experiments were done where cells were dehydrated and the water was replaced by a range of solvents, each speculated to allow life on other planets. The results of those experiments is that the DNA, RNA and protein did not work in these alternate solvent test cells. There was no life.

When water was added everything worked and life appears. These all or nothing experiments told us that everything inside earth based cells are intimately tuned to water. This is expected since water was and still is the nano-scale environment for chemical selection; abiogenesis to present.

This theory and proof is not much different than the theory of natural selection, since water is as natural as the desert or rain forest. The current model deals with natural selection at the macro-scale, but it falls short at the nano-scale. The current model does not give due justice to the single unique substance that is needed to make everything in known cells work.

The natural selection analogy between macro and nano-scale, is say we have a desert environment and we assume mutations for change. The desert, which is hot and dry, has specific sweet spots for life to thrive; selection is quite deterministic. Not everything; mutation, even if valid to life; thicker fur, will work in the desert. Water and nano-scale selection operates the same way, with only certain chemicals tuned to the sweet spots of the water environment. This is why alcohol and all the other chemicals did not work. They have different sweep spots and would have selected differently. The rain forest will select differently from the desert, which will select differently from the Arctic.

The current model tries to approximate this deterministic cause and affect of the water environment, with black box statistics. This is like assuming it is random for the desert to select less fur. This is where the model goes down the rabbit hole. We have know how cells are only tuned to water since the 1950's. Black box and blind testing means putting aside reasoning and lets the gods of chance think for you; type of religion.

The people who promote evolution as a dogma, also claim life on other planets, based on dice, but with zero hard evidence. The evidence is someone will win the big lottery someday! The experiments above tell us life on other planets can not use DNA and RNA, without water. What are the alternate templates for each speculated solvent on each planet; cause and affect based on nano-scale sweet spots?

Proofreader enzymes

Another conflicting observation for the black box approach is connected to proof reader enzymes whose job is to correct any typos created when DNA replicates. The mutation theory depends on random change on the DNA. However, the proofreader enzymes evolved and were selected by water to clean up that mess.

These defects; typos, are easy to find, since base pairs that are not optimized; imperfect hydrogen bonding, have a higher hydrogen bonding energy signal; not optimized in terms of hydrogen bonding. This attracts the proof readers. Proof reading enzymes load the dice toward determinism, which explains why some parts of the DNA rarely get defects and other aspects change faster. There is something else going on based on the nano-scale environment provided by water; selection process continues.

The double helical structure of DNA is dependent on the degree of hydration. There are three different conformations of the DNA double helix. A-DNA is a short, wide, right-handed helix. B-DNA, the structure proposed by Watson and Crick, is the most common conformation in most living cells. Z-DNA, unlike A- and B-DNA, is a left-handed helix. B-DNA is the most hydrated and is the most common on earth. This is not random, but is deterministic based on the quantized potential of DNA in water. Water places it where it needs to be to be most active, just as the desert has place to hide from the sun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cells only work in water

Experiments were done where cells were dehydrated and the water was replaced by a range of solvents, each speculated to allow life on other planets. The results of those experiments is that the DNA, RNA and protein did not work in these alternate solvent test cells. There was no life.

When water was added everything worked and life appears. These all or nothing experiments told us that everything inside earth based cells are intimately tuned to water. This is expected since water was and still is the nano-scale environment for chemical selection; abiogenesis to present.

This theory and proof is not much different than the theory of natural selection, since water is as natural as the desert or rain forest. The current model deals with natural selection at the macro-scale, but it falls short at the nano-scale. The current model does not give due justice to the single unique substance that is needed to make everything in known cells work.

The natural selection analogy between macro and nano-scale, is say we have a desert environment and we assume mutations for change. The desert, which is hot and dry, has specific sweet spots for life to thrive; selection is quite deterministic. Not everything; mutation, even if valid to life; thicker fur, will work in the desert. Water and nano-scale selection operates the same way, with only certain chemicals tuned to the sweet spots of the water environment. This is why alcohol and all the other chemicals did not work. They have different sweep spots and would have selected differently. The rain forest will select differently from the desert, which will select differently from the Arctic.

The current model tries to approximate this deterministic cause and affect of the water environment, with black box statistics. This is like assuming it is random for the desert to select less fur. This is where the model goes down the rabbit hole. We have know how cells are only tuned to water since the 1950's. Black box and blind testing means putting aside reasoning and lets the gods of chance think for you; type of religion.

The people who promote evolution as a dogma, also claim life on other planets, based on dice, but with zero hard evidence. The evidence is someone will win the big lottery someday! The experiments above tell us life on other planets can not use DNA and RNA, without water. What are the alternate templates for each speculated solvent on each planet; cause and affect based on nano-scale sweet spots?

Proofreader enzymes

Another conflicting observation for the black box approach is connected to proof reader enzymes whose job is to correct any typos created when DNA replicates. The mutation theory depends on random change on the DNA. However, the proofreader enzymes evolved and were selected by water to clean up that mess.

These defects; typos, are easy to find, since base pairs that are not optimized; imperfect hydrogen bonding, have a higher hydrogen bonding energy signal; not optimized in terms of hydrogen bonding. This attracts the proof readers. Proof reading enzymes load the dice toward determinism, which explains why some parts of the DNA rarely get defects and other aspects change faster. There is something else going on based on the nano-scale environment provided by water; selection process continues.

The double helical structure of DNA is dependent on the degree of hydration. There are three different conformations of the DNA double helix. A-DNA is a short, wide, right-handed helix. B-DNA, the structure proposed by Watson and Crick, is the most common conformation in most living cells. Z-DNA, unlike A- and B-DNA, is a left-handed helix. B-DNA is the most hydrated and is the most common on earth. This is not random, but is deterministic based on the quantized potential of DNA in water. Water places it where it needs to be to be most active, just as the desert has place to hide from the sun.

How is stating the obvious a refutation. Yes, life on Earth depends on water. I will alert the presses with your ground breaking discovery.

Perhaps you do not know what a refutation is?

 

[loverofhumanity]

We do that better in humanism. Holy books add nothing, and its versions of things such as love, justice, truth, compassion, and forgiveness are often not those of humanism, and never better.



Humanism does that much better as well.

How many times have I made a comment like that to you? You've never rebutted it before and won't now. You've never tried. You've never mentioned that you saw it. I assume that you disagree, but you have no argument. And why? Because the statement is correct. If it were wrong, you could demonstrate where and how, just as I do when you make analogous claims for religion, which you also disregard. The sine qua non of a correct statement is that it cannot be successfully rebutted, and the sine qua non of an incorrect one is that it can.



Disagree. The religion I know best and which has the most influence in the West is Christianity. The essential message there is obedience and submission. Sure, it's adorned with flowery language much like your own faith, but in the end, the religion comes down to submit or burn. Fail there, die in "sin," and all of that love and justice and mercy goes right down the drain.



Some gods have been ruled out including the Abrahamic god because of its description, which is logically incoherent and contradicts empirical findings, but not non-interventionalist gods like the deist god - the kind that don't come to earth or answer prayers or perform miracles or send messengers. Still, what does it matter if such a deity exists or existed? We can just ignore that possibility.

You also cannot rule out vampires and leprechauns. You can only do what every atheist does regarding gods - reject insufficiently evidenced claims that they exist and go on with life as if they don't. That is how you approach vampires and leprechauns, but not gods. The empiricist approaches them all that way.

It matters very much if God exists. As human reasoning and intellect are prone to err an All Knowing Entity Who possesses perfect knowledge is much preferred, One that knows all and is infallible.

The lesser human intellect being inferior-

‘The Perfect Intellect alone can provide true guidance and direction’ (Baha’u’llah)

So we each go our own way of choice.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Humans acted this way in tribes and social groups well before any holy books were written. This suggests the books were written to codify the natural social behaviors, and these behaviors were successful because they helped groups survive. The behavior came first, the books came second. Gods were a way to establish an authority among the leaders.


Early civilized people relied on the trial and error of rules that were passed down to the next generation. So sure, the religious rules were created and passed down to ensure stability and survival. No gods are known to exist.


We know where this sales pitch is going. Good luck trying to claim that Bahai is a modern, renewed religion while it includes bigotry and intolerance of gays. This is an obsolete prejudice in the 21st century.


I suggest reason is vastly superior to any religious dogma. Humanism works in ways that religion, like Bahai, fails.

Humanism has many noble ideas that Baha’is agree with. Our understanding is that the current system is defective and trying to fix each problem akin to putting a Band-Aid on a cancer but we do have many socio economic projects to help the underprivileged.

Our main purpose though is to help build a new world spiritual civilisation based upon virtues and human rights and justice.

The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably defective.” (Baha’u’llah)

Soon,” Bahá’u’lláh Himself has prophesied, “will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead.” And again: “By Myself! The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new Order in its stead.”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The people who promote evolution as a dogma, also claim life on other planets, based on dice

Dogma is what religions offer, especially Abrahamic religions, and through indoctrination, that is, repetition without sound argument in an effort to persuade. The people teaching evolution have evidenced arguments.

Furthermore, the dice argument for life is passe, assuming you mean something similar to mid-20th century ideas of all the right chemicals finding one another against the odds just when a lightning bolt came along to energize the soup and create life - something argued against by Hoyle's junkyard 747 analogy. There is good thermodynamic evidence that life organizes itself into existence wherever the conditions for it obtain, the way ice melts every time conditions for it to melt obtain.

The argument has to do with the way far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures self-organize in thermal reservoirs to channel heat the way hurricanes and tornadoes do (and the giant red spot on Jupiter, and the polar hexagons on Saturn). From A New Physics Theory of Life | Quanta Magazine :

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."

The current model does not give due justice to the single unique substance that is needed to make everything in known cells work.

The theory of biological evolution need make no reference to water. Its core tenets account for biological evolution. Did you want to suggest something that might falsify it, or comment on the suggestions of others? Water is an interesting substance, and the search for life is essentially the search for oceans, but its study is chemistry, and is more relevant when considering the chemistry and biochemistry (molecular biology) of abiogenesis, or chemical evolution.

It matters very much if God exists. As human reasoning and intellect are prone to err an All Knowing Entity Who possesses perfect knowledge is much preferred, One that knows all and is infallible.

If by "God," you mean the Abrahamic deity, that god has been ruled out. I understand that you do not accept that, but you decide what is true by faith, not compelling argument. There is no evidence for an interventionalist deity - one that affects our world, as with answering prayer or performing miracles, and especially by sending man commandments and other messages from gods. You accept these writings as evidence for a god, but their mundane content doesn't support that conclusion.

My argument was that the existence of non-interventionalist gods is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the laws of physics were the plan of a deity no longer present or not.

The lesser human intellect being inferior-

But you go there anyway. You have no choice. There is no intellect on earth but human intellect. Your scriptures are very human, like the Iliad and Odyssey, and is the case with every other word ever written, spoken, read, or thought. Human beings have been writing that kind of prose for millennia.

Yours is a sentiment found throughout the Abrahamic religions, antithetical to humanism, which prizes and promotes excellence in intellect and education. It considers critical thinking a superior intellectual practice and eschews lesser intellectual activities that use other methods to decide what is true about the world.

Yours is also what's referred to as a theology of despair in the Affirmations of Humanism:

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others. We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality. We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

Look at how different the psychology of your worldview, which demeans mankind as a source of knowledge and wisdom, is from that. Man had better not think for himself, right - just read the stuff you read, because it's better than human, right? Learning should be from your book, where wisdom and truth is found, right?

Why do you seem to avoid discussing the comparisons of Baha'ism and humanism that I keep offering? You hold it out as the path to this or that and I show you where humanism has done that better, just as I have done again. Can we assume that you have no counterargument? Remember, a correct statement cannot be successfully rebutted. It cannot be shown to be incorrect. And the last plausible, unrebutted conclusion is the final word in a debate, just as it is in a courtroom trial. Fail to successfully rebut the prosecution and go to prison.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Dogma is what religions offer, especially Abrahamic religions, and through indoctrination, that is, repetition without sound argument in an effort to persuade. The people teaching evolution have evidenced arguments.

Furthermore, the dice argument for life is passe, assuming you mean something similar to mid-20th century ideas of all the right chemicals finding one another against the odds just when a lightning bolt came along to energize the soup and create life - something argued against by Hoyle's junkyard 747 analogy. There is good thermodynamic evidence that life organizes itself into existence wherever the conditions for it obtain, the way ice melts every time conditions for it to melt obtain.

The argument has to do with the way far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures self-organize in thermal reservoirs to channel heat the way hurricanes and tornadoes do (and the giant red spot on Jupiter, and the polar hexagons on Saturn). From A New Physics Theory of Life | Quanta Magazine :

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."



The theory of biological evolution need make no reference to water. Its core tenets account for biological evolution. Did you want to suggest something that might falsify it, or comment on the suggestions of others? Water is an interesting substance, and the search for life is essentially the search for oceans, but its study is chemistry, and is more relevant when considering the chemistry and biochemistry (molecular biology) of abiogenesis, or chemical evolution.



If by "God," you mean the Abrahamic deity, that god has been ruled out. I understand that you do not accept that, but you decide what is true by faith, not compelling argument. There is no evidence for an interventionalist deity - one that affects our world, as with answering prayer or performing miracles, and especially by sending man commandments and other messages from gods. You accept these writings as evidence for a god, but their mundane content doesn't support that conclusion.

My argument was that the existence of non-interventionalist gods is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the laws of physics were the plan of a deity no longer present or not.



But you go there anyway. You have no choice. There is no intellect on earth but human intellect. Your scriptures are very human, like the Iliad and Odyssey, and is the case with every other word ever written, spoken, read, or thought. Human beings have been writing that kind of prose for millennia.

Yours is a sentiment found throughout the Abrahamic religions, antithetical to humanism, which prizes and promotes excellence in intellect and education. It considers critical thinking a superior intellectual practice and eschews lesser intellectual activities that use other methods to decide what is true about the world.

Yours is also what's referred to as a theology of despair in the Affirmations of Humanism:

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others. We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality. We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

Look at how different the psychology of your worldview, which demeans mankind as a source of knowledge and wisdom, is from that. Man had better not think for himself, right - just read the stuff you read, because it's better than human, right? Learning should be from your book, where wisdom and truth is found, right?

Why do you seem to avoid discussing the comparisons of Baha'ism and humanism that I keep offering? You hold it out as the path to this or that and I show you where humanism has done that better, just as I have done again. Can we assume that you have no counterargument? Remember, a correct statement cannot be successfully rebutted. It cannot be shown to be incorrect. And the last plausible, unrebutted conclusion is the final word in a debate, just as it is in a courtroom trial. Fail to successfully rebut the prosecution and go to prison.

With many new movements they have good and noble principles which the Baha’i Faith encompasses but they do not go far enough. Baha’u’llah brought a blueprint for a new world civilisation. There is a plethora of writings on this plan too numerous to post here but in great detail. He stated that the current order is ‘defective’ and cannot be repaired or fixed. He states we have to build anew.

So I don’t doubt that humanism has many good principles but Baha’is do not believe that this system can be fixed much like trying to cure a cancer with a bandaid.

So Baha’is are building a new world civilisation. It will take centuries and unfold in stages but it is more realistic than trying to plug holes in a fast sinking ship. However noble good ideas and principles are, the world needs a new system.

The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new order in its stead. He, verily, is powerful over all things. (Baha’u’llah)

The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

I don’t expect you to read this but it’s an outline of a future world civilisation based on the teachings of Baha’u’llah. It goes into quite a bit of detail and substance.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library I don’t expect you to read this but it’s an outline of a future world civilisation based on the teachings of Baha’u’llah. It goes into quite a bit of detail and substance.

I looked at it. There are too many apostrophes.

What substance? What's the first step, specifically? Was it this: "It would, however, be helpful and instructive to bear in mind certain basic principles with reference to the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá, which, together with the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, constitutes the chief depository wherein are enshrined those priceless elements of that Divine Civilization, the establishment of which is the primary mission of the Bahá’í Faith."

Or maybe this was part of the substance of the blueprint:

"It should be remembered by every follower of the Cause that the system of Bahá’í administration is not an innovation imposed arbitrarily upon the Bahá’ís of the world since the Master’s passing, but derives its authority from the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá, is specifically prescribed in unnumbered Tablets, and rests in some of its essential features upon the explicit provisions of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas."

And why is it called an outline here but a blueprint elsewhere? A blueprint is a specific plan that indicates the geometry and dimensions of an edifice, one a construction contractor can use to build a building. The following is not analogous to that at all:

Baha’u’llah brought a blueprint for a new world civilisation. There is a plethora of writings on this plan too numerous to post here but in great detail. He stated that the current order is ‘defective’ and cannot be repaired or fixed. He states we have to build anew.

Disagree. There is no blueprint and no specific plan at all. How do you plan to build the world anew? I have a better plan. Let's get religions and the selfish disempowered, and let the humanists continue reshaping the world as they have for centuries now, but without the impediments caused by people lacking empathy and disesteeming critical thought. Humanists are working on that. They're battling the fascists, the bigots, and the theocrats on multiple fronts. What are the Baha'i doing there beside promoting faith and homophobic doctrine while claiming to have a plan? "You say you got a real solution, well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan"

So I don’t doubt that humanism has many good principles but Baha’is do not believe that this system can be fixed much like trying to cure a cancer with a bandaid.

But you offer not even a Band-Aid.

So Baha’is are building a new world civilisation.

No, they're not. They're just talking to one another. While they're doing that, humanists are taking action. Who else is defending America from the enemies of democracy? Who else is supporting the Ukranians? Who else is defending the rights of women and LGBTQ? Who else is trying to get out the vote? What have the Baha'i done for or about any of that? Expressing concern? Quoting Baha'u'llah?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Not in any effective way. A couple of tourist attractions and YT videos don't constitute them being relevant anymore than the same does for flat-earthers and bigfoot hunters. And the DI shut down what passed for their "research arm" a few years ago.

I'm sure creationism will remain "alive" in the sense of "some people still believe it", but in terms of getting it into public schools or affecting science in any way....it's dead.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

For me the primary interest isn't in the actual subject as much as it is in creationsts' behaviors. Just the other day in another forum I showed "dad" (remember him) how the old-earth, evolutionary timeline was used in gas and oil exploration. His response was literally to just say that the old-earth, evolutionary timeline had no use.

I'm fascinated by such utterly bizarre behavior.

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.

Yep, yet creationists will keep repeating them ad nauseum. It's all they've got.

 

[Yerda]

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.

Falsifiability is a decent heuristic but I think we get a bit wrapped up in it with these online chats between (mosty) laypeople. In my very non-expert opinion the demarcation of science and not science is not as straightforward as "is it falsifiable", and falsification is not as straightforward as "observation falsifies the theory".

Anyway this is a bit of a tangent, and I agree with what you've said.

 

[Alien826]

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others. We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality. We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

A quick question about humanism as you understand it?

What is the humanist position on the basic character of humans?

According to Christianity, we are totally lost in sin, unable to help ourselves and need God to make us "good". According to Buddhism, we are basically good, but confused about the nature of the world. We can "save" ourselves. albeit with much effort.

Where does humanism fall in this? Are we all basically good? Are some irretrievably bad? I use "good" and "bad' loosely of course.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I looked at it. There are too many apostrophes.

What substance? What's the first step, specifically? Was it this: "It would, however, be helpful and instructive to bear in mind certain basic principles with reference to the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá, which, together with the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, constitutes the chief depository wherein are enshrined those priceless elements of that Divine Civilization, the establishment of which is the primary mission of the Bahá’í Faith."

Or maybe this was part of the substance of the blueprint:

"It should be remembered by every follower of the Cause that the system of Bahá’í administration is not an innovation imposed arbitrarily upon the Bahá’ís of the world since the Master’s passing, but derives its authority from the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá, is specifically prescribed in unnumbered Tablets, and rests in some of its essential features upon the explicit provisions of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas."

And why is it called an outline here but a blueprint elsewhere? A blueprint is a specific plan that indicates the geometry and dimensions of an edifice, one a construction contractor can use to build a building. The following is not analogous to that at all:



Disagree. There is no blueprint and no specific plan at all. How do you plan to build the world anew? I have a better plan. Let's get religions and the selfish disempowered, and let the humanists continue reshaping the world as they have for centuries now, but without the impediments caused by people lacking empathy and disesteeming critical thought. Humanists are working on that. They're battling the fascists, the bigots, and the theocrats on multiple fronts. What are the Baha'i doing there beside promoting faith and homophobic doctrine while claiming to have a plan? "You say you got a real solution, well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan"



But you offer not even a Band-Aid.



No, they're not. They're just talking to one another. While they're doing that, humanists are taking action. Who else is defending America from the enemies of democracy? Who else is supporting the Ukranians? Who else is defending the rights of women and LGBTQ? Who else is trying to get out the vote? What have the Baha'i done for or about any of that? Expressing concern? Quoting Baha'u'llah?

My understanding is that we all need to work together to build a better world and we each contribute to the process in our own way. Humanists do their bit and so do many other groups. We all focus in different ways to better the world. Baha’is focus on unity because problems like the environment and wars require international consensus and consultation. Collectively, Baha’u’llah claims we can, by working together, solve many of our problems.

The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded.
(“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286) [6]

 

[syo]

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

Entropy.