Is Evolution and abiogenesis a pseudoscience?

[w1z4rd]

No experiment has ever shown evolution. That is why it remains a theory.

Well hate to blow your bubble but its both fact and theory. In the real world fact and theory are not different levels on a hierarchical scale. A theory explains a fact. Fact.. things evolve... theory... how they evolve.

Do you know the differences between a hypothesis, a theory and a theorem ?

 

[VitalOne]

Evolution and abiogenesis are both testable. Natural selection is often tested. Speciation has been tested. Abiogenesis has been the inspiration for some experiments (see post #10).

In any case, lack of testing is not the same as being non-testable.

But you can't disprove any of it, its not falsifiable...how can you disprove natural selection or abiogenesis? For Abiogenesis, all we're getting labs are amino acids, no genetic structure, no coding system, nothing like actual life, and remember we've been trying since the 1950s, this direct evidence against abiogenesis, all you can conclude from the evidence is that "it could've possibly some how in some way at some time happened"....this is why a lot of biologists are concluding a meteor or something must have crashed on Earth with life already on it...

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Great points VO.

 

[spidergoat]

No experiment has ever shown evolution. That is why it remains a theory.

That is absolutely false. Firstly, many experiments show evolution, and secondly you use the term "theory" incorrectly, as if it is an expression of doubt.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

but does it lead to evolution? You didn't say it does. We observe natural selection all the time through animals. Yet we haven't seen the change in creature that evolution implies at it's largest degree.

Natural selection is an aspect of evolution, one of many. We don't see sedimentary grains being compressed into rock, but we can be reasonably sure that's what happens by observing the grains accumulate, and seeing the later result.

I'm sure it's inspired much but testable implies that it's passed those test...They have not.

No it doesn't. Testable means an hypothesis that can be tested, not one that has passed a test.

 

[NDS]

"it could've possibly some how in some way at some time happened."

Funny, IAC uses that same exact approach.

 

[Saquist]

Well hate to blow your bubble but its both fact and theory. In the real world fact and theory are not different levels on a hierarchical scale. A theory explains a fact. Fact.. things evolve... theory... how they evolve.

Do you know the differences between a hypothesis, a theory and a theorem ?

My bubble is still intact. The only Fact in evolution is that Life is diverse and that animals change within limits.

Evolution has no relation made evident from those facts...Infact it seems completely disconnected from reality.

 

[RoyLennigan]

irreducibility of design can be experimented.

How?

 

[Saquist]

How?

reverse engineering.

If this were wrong scientist should be willing to begin actively deconstructing life. Experiments that show that life in at least less complex forms can retain function.

I would presume this would be an obvious step in proving Behe wrong.

 

[spidergoat]

My bubble is still intact. The only Fact in evolution is that Life is diverse and that animals change within limits.

Evolution has no relation made evident from those facts...Infact it seems completely disconnected from reality.

What about inheritable characteristics? DNA? Mutation? Genetic drift? Virtually every discovery in biology supports the Theory of Evolution.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Well I'm saying it should be considered a pseudoscience if there's no objective evidence for it....otherwise how different is it from astrology or any other pseudoscience? Its all based on what could've happened, what could be true without any objective evidence....

Could it be that you don't quite understand the objective evidence for these things? It is very easy not to, even I don't quite understand much of it. But you can't just disagree with anything you don't understand. Try learning what the 'experts' learn, and if you disagree still, then maybe you are making connections that other people are missing. Also, if you do this, I would like to know your discoveries. If you have already done this, then I would like to know your discoveries even more so.

Also your assertion that abiogenesis must have happened is debatable....as for me taking down people who don't agree with me....I clearly saw that you agreed in a way, but disagreed in another way...

If my assertion is debatable, then debate it.

 

[RoyLennigan]

reverse engineering.

Don't give me a one-liner, that doesn't explain anything. Tell me, explain to me. Write an abstract if you have to.

 

[RoyLennigan]

reverse engineering.

Also, how are we supposed to figure out if nature is able to create life of its own?

We are human and we don't know everything. Nature is all and has processes that we don't know of. We could not possibly reverse engineer in the same method that nature created life in the first place.

You are asking for the same thing as saying that we could reverse engineer life to find out if god could create it.

 

[Saquist]

The idea is simple the question you're asking yourself is why haven't they've done so...I'm not a biologist but I know retro viruses can alter the DNA in cells...Could not this tool be used to deconstruct a less complicated life form

If evolutions theory is sound then deconstruction should be even simpler than the building process.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Great point Saquist.

 

[NDS]

Great point Saquist.

LOL. Something you've never accomplished.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Do you think?

 

[NDS]

Yes.

But then again, it's hard to make a good point with one sentence.

 

[RoyLennigan]

The idea is simple the question you're asking yourself is why haven't they've done so...I'm not a biologist but I know retro viruses can alter the DNA in cells...Could not this tool be used to deconstruct a less complicated life form

If evolutions theory is sound then deconstruction should be even simpler than the building process.

But evolution is not sound, nor will it ever be. No human idea or concept is ever, nor ever will be sound. That is why we are always working on it to make it more accurate to the new observations we keep making. This is why it would be impossible to reverse engineer evolution even if it did happen naturally and without an "intelligent designer".

This is why I believe that there is no difference between God and Nature. Because when it comes down to it, they're both omnipotent and eternal and the creator of all things in the universe, including the universe itself.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

In light of the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics, how can matter be eternal?

 

[RoyLennigan]

In light of the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics, how can matter be eternal?

Nature is not matter. Nature is the web of interacting relationships along with the energy bound by them that forms and is the essence of the universe.

Matter is not eternal. But energy is. Nature, it is most basic form, is energy or, if energy has a more basic form it is that.