Abiogenesis - New Study

[N35t0r]

If all five premises are in fact true, then it's reasonable to ask the question:

"what does evolution claim human beings will evolve into?"

If current theories on stellar development are true, which star do they claim will be the next one to go supernova? (not the next one we will see, the next one that will happen).

[Ben Kenobi]

If current theories on stellar development are true, which star do they claim will be the next one to go supernova? (not the next one we will see, the next one that will happen).

One can infer from stellar evolutionary models that certain stars like Eta Carinae and Betelgeuse are more likely to go supernova, than say less massive ones like Sirius or Procyon. As for observational evidence - Supernova 1987 has been traced to it's progenitor - we have observed a supernova in progress. Many in fact. We understand that there are different ones and how they are different from each other and are now working to differentiate subsets of them.

If, for example, a small, non descript red dwarf were to go supernova instead of Eta Carinae- it would be evidence that the present stellar evolutionary model is wrong.

I suggest you answer the question, Nestor. If your argument is, "evolution makes no testable claims regarding the future of human evolution", that you simply issue this confession and we can continue to proceed with the examination of Evolution as an empirical theory.

[Ben Kenobi]

All this ramble may be relevant if we were discussing spontaneous generation, but since it's not the 19th century any more, and the article is talking about something else entirely, it's not.

Arguing that living things can come from non-organic materials is the definition of a-bio-genesis. Spontaneous generation is a subset of abiogenesis and has been proven to be objectively wrong, a development that was a significant advance in biology. Perhaps the elimination of another unproven hypothesis will lead to a similar revolution in knowledge.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you predict exactly when a particular radioactive nucleus will decay? Gosh, physicists must have been doing stuff wrong for the past 100 years.

We're discussing speciation among the human species as a whole, not one individual. Arguing that we cannot infer the direction in which the species evolves would be similar to arguing we don't understand how radioactive isotopes behave. We can, for instance, chart the radioactive decay of different isotopes. Evolution should be able to make reliable predictions about the direction of speciation within the human species as a whole.

So, what does evolution predict?

[dannubis]

Like a flie to a turd...

[Dr Strangelove]

This:

[N35t0r]

One can infer from stellar evolutionary models that certain stars like Eta Carinae and Betelgeuse are more likely to go supernova, than say less massive ones like Sirius or Procyon. As for observational evidence - Supernova 1987 has been traced to it's progenitor - we have observed a supernova in progress. Many in fact. We understand that there are different ones and how they are different from each other and are now working to differentiate subsets of them.

So no then, it can't.

I suggest you answer the question, Nestor.

Which one, this one:

"what does evolution claim human beings will evolve into?"

I'll answer it as soon as you can tell me which is the next star that will go supernova, and agree that if you're wrong, then current stellar models are wrong.

If your argument is, "evolution makes no testable claims regarding the future of human evolution",

If you had asked that, I would have answered. But you didn't.

[ricketyclik]

"what does evolution claim human beings will evolve into?"

If I understand your question correctly, you're actually asking "What do scientists claim human beings will evolve into?" The answer is that scientists - at least as far as I know - don't make claims about what species will evolve into, just what they've evolved from. People from various disciplines conjecture about what humans will evolve into, including scientists.

(I know I shouldn't be buying into Ben's obfuscation, but I'm bored at the moment).

[ricketyclik]

Addendum: evolution is inherently unpredictable, responding as it does to environment, which is complex and ever-changing. I'm sure you're (Ben) familiar with Chaos Theory.

[Ben Kenobi]

So no then, it can't.

Of prominent stars the consensus is Eta Carinae, given it's imposter event 150 years ago.

Now - answer the question - Nester. What does evolution claim that human beings will evolve into?

[Ben Kenobi]

If I understand your question correctly, you're actually asking "What do scientists claim human beings will evolve into?" The answer is that scientists - at least as far as I know - don't make claims about what species will evolve into, just what they've evolved from. People from various disciplines conjecture about what humans will evolve into, including scientists.

Finally.

Addendum: evolution is inherently unpredictable, responding as it does to environment, which is complex and ever-changing. I'm sure you're (Ben) familiar with Chaos Theory.

Chaos theory argues that small things can have a large impact on the overall outcome, that it can make mathematical models that use it's theories in order to explain excessively complex systems, such as the weather.

Evolution OTOH, makes no such predictions. Thus, it is not a scientific theory at all.

[molly bloom]

You are very stupid.

Careful- don't praise him too highly....

[N35t0r]

Of prominent stars the consensus is Eta Carinae, given it's imposter event 150 years ago.

So if some other star goes nova first, then you'd be in favour of dismissing current stellar development theories as pseudoscientific claptrap. Nice. I'll see if I can remember this post when the relevant event happens.

Now - answer the question - Nester. What does evolution claim that human beings will evolve into?

'Evolution' doesn't make any claims about what human beings will evolve into. It just states that, given sufficient selective pressure, certain genes/traits will be favoured over others.

[ricketyclik]

Chaos theory argues that small things can have a large impact on the overall outcome, that it can make mathematical models that use it's theories in order to explain excessively complex systems, such as the weather.

It is also said by Chaos theoreticians that in order to accurately model such a system the model must contain at least as many variables as the reality.

Evolution OTOH, makes no such predictions. Thus, it is not a scientific theory at all.

Evolution is orders of magnitude more complex than the weather. Evidence: the weather is one of the many drivers of evolution. Once we've nailed computer modelling of the weather, individual stimulus/response for each and every individual organism, tracking and anticipating each and every movement of each and every soil particle, fine-grained prediction of erosion, solar activity levels, etc, then one might be able to come up with somewhat accurate predictive models for evolution.

Just because we don't have accurate predictive models of something doesn't mean that that thing doesn't exist, or isn't a valid theory.

[N35t0r]

He either knows this and just ignores it, or he doesn't because he is ignoring it on purpose; either way, he disses a theory by simplifying it to the extreme and then building a strawman to tear down.