# How Do We Falsify Abiogenesis? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971 "2017-05-06T02:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Great\_White\_Dope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/22d042/32.png) [@Great\_White\_Dope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_White_Dope)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/1 "2017-05-06T02:19:31Z")
First, let’s make it clear what we mean by abiogenesis. If you [Google the term](https://www.google.com/search?q=abiogenesis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8), you’ll see an adequate definition at the top of the search results: > [@](#): > > \*\*abiogenesis /_a·bi·o·gen·e·sis/ noun_ > the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. > > _“to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago”_ This works for me. So, how do we falsify this notion that inanimate substance “evolved” into the original lifeforms in some chemical soup, or underwater vent, or whatever the belief of the day is? What potential finding would be enough to say, “okay, this idea is wrong”? One of the issues with abiogenesis research is that its supporters can always hide behind the skirt of ignorance. That is, no matter how many decades of failed abiogenesis research we go through, they can always cling to the idea that we’ve just not found the right conditions yet. This strikes me as being decidedly \*unscientific \*ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/2 "2017-05-06T02:25:50Z")
What are you trying to debate? The idea of how life originally evolved? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/3 "2017-05-06T02:28:37Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > What are you trying to debate? The idea of how life originally evolved? Looks more like trying to justify creationism or intelligent design. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/4 "2017-05-06T02:31:52Z")
He’s trying to claim that life couldn’t possibly have come into existence on its own. Which means a [del]Wizard[/del] God did it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/5 "2017-05-06T02:37:29Z")
The OP should read up on the Miller-Urey experiment. The short version is they put inorganic materials into a sealed glass globe that replicated what they feel would be similar to the very early earth. Then add some electric sparks (simulated lightning) and see what happens. From this soup they produced organic compounds. > [@](#): > > The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment supported Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1952[3] by Stanley Miller, with assistance from Harold Urey, at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6] > > After Miller’s death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller’s original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] More-recent evidence suggests that Earth’s original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.[8] > > SOURCE: [Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment) And… > [@](#): > > A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory. > > Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed. > > \ > > According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.” > > Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.” > > Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites. > > SOURCE: [Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | WIRED](https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/) ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/6 "2017-05-06T02:38:49Z")
I was hoping I could get him to state that clearly instead of that convoluted “how do we falsify” sentence, which sounds like some kind of contest. Maybe he’ll come back and continue the witnessing. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_White\_Dope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/22d042/32.png) [@Great\_White\_Dope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_White_Dope)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/7 "2017-05-06T02:43:07Z")
I’m not sure what’s so difficult to grasp about my question. In order for something to qualify as science, it must be falsifiable in theory. I want to know what the theoretical falsification is for abiogenesis. “We know abiogenesis is false because research has discovered \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” Fill in the blank. If there are none, then it can’t reasonably be called a science, and its widespread acceptance in academia becomes a matter of clear-cut ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/8 "2017-05-06T02:45:52Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > “We know abiogenesis is false because research has discovered \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” > > Fill in the blank. We know abiogenesis is false because research has discovered — that it is impossible to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials. The above would do it but as I showed above science has already shown that you can do it so your question is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/9 "2017-05-06T03:00:13Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > “We know abiogenesis is false because research has discovered \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” > > Fill in the blank. > > If there are none, then it can’t reasonably be called a science, and its widespread acceptance in academia becomes a matter of clear-cut ideology. This is really specious reasoning. You insist your opponents prove their own ideas false, then proclaim that if they can’t, it isn’t science, it is ideology. How does that sound like a plausible argument to start in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/10 "2017-05-06T03:00:29Z")
So, how do we falsify this notion that animate substance was created by God or whatever the belief of the day is? What potential finding would be enough to say, “okay, this idea is wrong”? One of the issues with intelligent design is that its supporters can always hide behind the skirt of ignorance. That is, no matter how many decades of failed intelligent design “research” we go through, they can always cling to the idea that God simply made it appear that way. This strikes me as being decidedly religious dogma. I fixed the OP for you. You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/11 "2017-05-06T03:00:30Z")
You seem confused about “falsability”. The idea is that a theory should be testable NOT that it should be proven wrong in order to be scientifically valid (which makes no sense). Furthermore, since we can’t yet test all types of theory (for example in Physics), this concept is not held as a necessary piece for the formulation of all theories. Theories are formulated and tested as we gain more knowledge. In this case, your question has been answered. The Dope is a wonderful place. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_White\_Dope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/22d042/32.png) [@Great\_White\_Dope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_White_Dope)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/12 "2017-05-06T03:09:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > We know abiogenesis is false because research has discovered — that it is impossible to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials. > > The above would do it but as I showed above science has already shown that you can do it so your question is moot. With all due respect, I’m not sure you standards could possibly sink any lower. Think about it. Using your incredibly low standards of falsification, any hypothesis which requires the synthesizing of organic compounds from inorganic materials would be elevated to science. **Hypothesis** : The origin of Earth-based life was the Greek god Zeus synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic materials, creating life from non-life. **Theoretical Falsification** : Showing that it is impossible to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials. Are you willing to open the floodgates to a myriad of wacky ideas qualifying as science in order for abiogenesis to qualify as science? Furthermore, ignoring what has already been demonstrated, there’s the question of _how_ one could theoretically demonstrate that it’s impossible to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials. That is, how do you bridge the gap from _absence of knowledge_ to _knowledge of absence_ (explained below)? \*\*A_ **bsence of Knowledge** : “We don’t know if it’s possible to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials, but we don’t know that it’s impossible.”_ **Knowledge of Absence** : \*“We know that it’s impossible to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials.” \*How could we go from the former, to the latter? If it can’t be done, then your theoretical falsification was never valid in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/13 "2017-05-06T03:20:21Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > Using your incredibly low standards of falsification, any hypothesis which requires the synthesizing of organic compounds from inorganic materials would be elevated to science. > > **Hypothesis** : The origin of Earth-based life was the Greek god Zeus synthesizing organic compounds from inorganic materials, creating life from non-life. Huh? I am not following your line of reasoning. I will say though Miller and Urey did not need Zeus and I am reasonably sure they did not include him in their hypothesis (or any other supernatural being or force). They did what they did in a laboratory and if you wanted to you could do the same at home. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/14 "2017-05-06T03:21:38Z")
Seems to me that you would need a proper alternate premise. If you hypothesize divine intervention as an alternative to abiogenesis, you would have to substantiate the divine actor. We could possibly falsify any part of the process by showing that the path from one stage to the next is physically impossible, but that still leaves us with an intractable gap: so far, there are no viable alternatives to abiogenesis and no evidence of any sort of supernatural agency. Thus, from a scientific point of view, abiogenesis is the standing paradigm, because there is nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/15 "2017-05-06T03:25:53Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > With all due respect > > **Knowledge of Absence** : \*“We know that it’s impossible to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials.” > > \*How could we go from the former, to the latter? If it can’t be done, then your theoretical falsification was never valid in the first place. Except that we already know that it is possible. Therefore we cannot make this claim for you and it in no way invalidates the fact that it can be done. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/16 "2017-05-06T03:35:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > I am not following your line of reasoning. > > I will say though Miller and Urey did not need Zeus and I am reasonably sure they did not include him in their hypothesis. They did what they did in a laboratory and if you wanted to you could do the same at home. Deep time also showed that whatever old time religion told us about that Zeus creation, he was a Johnie come lately as people that looked at the time lines can say that ancient Greeks thought that the creation of the world was around [2000BC](http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Mythology/en/MythicalChronology.html) , In other words, That Zeus creation (and it was Chaos actually) is falsified because evidence of life on earth has been found that tell us that life appeared on earth around 4.28 billion years in the past. > **[Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39117523)** > > Researchers discover fossils of what may be some of earliest living organisms. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/17 "2017-05-06T04:09:03Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > I’m not sure what’s so difficult to grasp about my question. > > In order for something to qualify as science, it must be falsifiable in theory. I want to know what the theoretical falsification is for abiogenesis. > > “We know abiogenesis is false because research has discovered \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” > > Fill in the blank. > > If there are none, then it can’t reasonably be called a science, and its widespread acceptance in academia becomes a matter of clear-cut ideology. I’ve admittedly got a heck of a lot of Cinco de Mayo alcohol in me, but even so I don’t believe that’s how falsification is supposed to work. Look, you know that people in general – and scientists in particular – talk about how volcanoes have erupted in the past, right? And about how earthquakes have occurred? There’s no ideology to it, but there _are_ classes taught by guys with doctorates? Now, you can science the _hell_ out of that stuff. Using falsification as your guide, you can even do interesting work involving predictions – possibly jettisoning a conclusion you’ve made, if and when the unexpected ever happens instead. But that’s true even if you can’t readily invent a “We Know That Volcanoes Have Never Actually Happened Because \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_” test. It’s perfectly good science even if you can’t readily come up with some fill-in-the-blank that could hypothetically prove how past earthquakes didn’t actually take place. Like, you get _that,_ right? You accept that a scientist can have big important things to say about earthquakes or volcanoes, even if he can but respond with a stunned look when some guy asks him, _hey, what would prove there’s never been one?_ ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/18 "2017-05-06T04:56:40Z")
You are trying to set up testability at the wrong level. Abiogenesis is the first point life exists. There are many possible theories for how, including devine action and aliens. The only way to falsify that would be to life has as always existed. My best guess at what you actually want to talk about is the current leading theory on how it happened. Easiest way to do that is to find a organic compound that cannot be synthesized without an organic precursor. Your best bet at one time was polarized compounds, but that but was cracked. \*Note that I am ten years out from my last chem class and typing this up in bed. I may type a more detailed response in the morning. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/19 "2017-05-06T05:00:50Z")
There’s certainly nothing _un_scientific about assumptions … many many scientific disciplines accept the conservation of energy as an assumption yet we know this is completely false … by Einstein’s mass/energy conversion equation we know it is mass/energy that’s conserved … but if we don’t have nuclear reactions going on, then the conservation of energy is an excellent assumption … The OP seems to think that abiogenesis is something already set in stone … it’s not, and far from it … We’ll first need a theory that can be truthified before we set about to falsify it … so let’s zap that organic soup with lightning bolts for 100,000 years … see if that works … We’ll know a lot more once we find life on another planet … then we’ll be able to compare the two and (hopefully) be much closer to a testable theory … in the meantime let’s figure out why viable proteins only spin to the right … never to the left … and there’s a whole shit-load of positrons missing, maybe we need find those as well before we start claiming physics is established science, eh? … ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971/20 "2017-05-06T09:01:17Z")
> [@Great\_White\_Dope](#): > > One of the issues with abiogenesis research is that its supporters can always hide behind the skirt of ignorance. That is, no matter how many decades of failed abiogenesis research we go through, they can always cling to the idea that we’ve just not found the right conditions yet. This strikes me as being decidedly \*unscientific \*ideology. Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which has evidence to support it. Believing that God created the Universe is a religious belief with no evidence to support it. Or to paraphrase you: One of the issues with believing in a God is that its supporters can always hide behind the skirt of ignorance. That is, no matter how many decades of failed evidence for any God we go through, they can always cling to the idea that we’ve just not found the right conditions yet. This strikes me as being decidedly \*religious \*ideology. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-falsify-abiogenesis/785971.md?page=2)