Abiogenesis as an idea can not be falsified. Specific mechanisms hypothesized to be the way abiogenesis works can be. For instance, a current abiogenesis-related theory is that amino acids, which have been shown to be naturally occuring given “primordial soup and lightning” type conditions, could have been falsified by creating these conditions and observing the outcome. If no amino acids were formed when lightning was bunged through primordial soup, then it probably didn’t happen that way. We could say definitely that it couldn’t have happened with the parameters of the experiment(i.e. the composition of the “soup” and the duration/strength of the electrical charge). Thus the hypothesis that amino acids, the “building blocks of life”, were formed by bunging lightning of a certain magnitude and duration through a primordial soup of certain composition would have been falsified. Doesn’t falsify the idea overall, but the specific mechanism and parameters are testable and therefore the hypothesis is falsifiable.
I could be wrong here, but I don’t think we have an abiogenesis theory yet. That is to say, we have not come up with a falsifiable mechanism to explain why it happened. (it clearly did happen as we are here (not that I am not trying to exclude an intelligent creator as a possible mechanism for abiogenesis).
I beleive abiogenesis exists as a phenomenon whose explanation has not been discovered. Think of Newton, and the apple example for his discovery. That the apple fell is not falsifiable, and it isn’t an explanation why the apple fell. The theory of gravity, however, is falsifiable and does provide an explanation of why the apple fell. Apples falling is a phenomenon whose explanation has been discovered.
For those who propose that baiogenesis can be falsified, I agree that can in theory. But in theory so can greinspace’s theory.
Any falsification of an abiogenesis theory needs a primitoive Earth like planet and and at least a billion years. Obviously thatis not ever going to be really possible. It’s a ludicrous fantasy to say that that is falsification.
Greinspace could just as easily say that all he requires is a pure quantum vacuum and a God. Those things are neithe rmore nor less obtainable than the apparatus for falsifying atheistic abiogeneis.
Perhaps, just perhaps, some highly specific aspects of some abiogenesis theory can be falsified. But I;ve never seen it. For instance if the Miller-Urey experiment hadn’t ‘worked’ it wuld in no way have falsified that hypotheses despite what you suggest mtgman. this is an essentially random proces and the original may have taken a billion years toproduce any observable results. A run of 75 years falsifies nothing at all unless the theory is that life arose from inorganic compounds within 70 years. Such a hypotheses would have been falsified (partially) but the actual abiogenic thoery would not have been.
And of course when we eneter intothe realm of more outre theories such as panspermia or the evolution of life in micropores there is simply no manner whatsoever in which they can be falsified.
Any scientific hypothesis is specific enough to be either proven or disproven by experimentation. If the Miller/Urey experiment had failed then it would have disproven the hypothesis, which(when fully stated) included the composition of the “soup” and the magnitude/duration of the electrical stimulation. It would not disprove all cases, but that’s not how science works in most cases. Start with the specific, move to the general once the specific is well understood. If the Miller/Urey experiment had failed then their hypothesis would indeed have been falsified because it, scientifically stated, included information about the parameters of the situation it was trying to explain. In fact, the Miller/Urey may have actually failed. There have been significant objections raised about the methodology. Specifically the composition of the “soup” and the amount of electrical energy expended on it have been questioned as not accurately simulating early-Earth conditions. If these objections hold up to scrutiny then it means the Miller/Urey hypothesis was incorrect(false) because they did not correctly model primordial conditions in the hypothesis(and it was reflected in the experiment they created to test it).
The troubleis mtgman that I havenever, ever seen an abiogenesis hypothesis presentedin any scientific journal that specifies a run time. that was precisely my point.
You seem to think that they always inlude a testable run time. Can you please provide me with a refernce to evenone abiogenesis hypothesis published in any scientific journal that includes a run time.
And If you can’t then will you concede that such hypotheses are not falsifiable and no more scientific than greinspace’s?
No one knows whether our planet is unique in the universe. We have not yet confirmed that life exists elsewhere, and we have not yet created life from inorganic chemicals; however, the universe is unimaginably vast. It’s possible that some other intelligent species out there has proven whether or not life could arise from unliving matter. We just don’t know for sure yet.
Really really big. You just won’t believe how vastly, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean you think it’s a long way down the street to the chemist but that’s just peanuts to space…"
and so on.
Well it’s a fundamental logical flaw of “intelligent design”. If life is so complex that some other entity had to design it, then it stands to reason that entity is sufficiently complex to require being designed by someone else…and so on
Fact is we just don’t know how “serendipitous” those chemical reactions are. It could be a very common phenomenon or it could be unique to our planet. When you consider how vast the universe is, it seems incredibly arrogant to assume that it’s all here just for us (especially when we won’t be able to ever use most of it).
Why do the laws of physics just “happen” to be just right in this universe to support the creation of life? Because if they didn’t, no one would be here to contemplate it. Much like a tree falling in the woods with no one around.
If the hypothesis was not falsifiable then yes, it would be unscientific. By definition a scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. If someone made what they call a hypothesis and it did not include a way to falsify it through experimentation then it would be the fault of the person who suggested the hypothesis. It should also be noted that a hypothesis is not disproven by bad experiments. A poorly-designed experiment doesn’t tell us anything about the truth value of the hypothesis.
On the other hand, poorly designed experiments are often the result of a poor hypothesis. Not necessarially a false hypothesis, but more likely one which is overly vague and hard to test via experimentation. According to the Wikipedia article on the Scientific Method(emphasis mine)
An overly broad hypothesis could, just like a theory, be subject to constant ad-hoc modification. In the example above someone could say “well, primordial soup plus lightning could still produce amino acids, you just don’t have the parameters right” and they would be correct. So another experiment, with different parameters, can be run. The problem I think you have with this is that someone could ALWAYS say “you just don’t have the parameters right” and therefore the broader view is never fully falsifiable as long as some combination of “primoridal soup mix” plus “magnitude of electrical charge” plus “duration of experiment” remains untested. This is true and it is exactly why the principle of parsimony comes into play. If you test hundreds and hundreds of different combinations of the above parameters and never get any results that you predicted out of your hypothesis, then it’s true you haven’t absolutely falsified it, but that’s just because of the continual shifting of the goalposts. Eventually you have to call it quits and put that hypothesis back on the shelf saying that at this point in time with the technology and resources available it can’t be properly tested. Like I mentioned earlier, a good hypothesis, properly and fully stated, will allow for falsifiability without allowing endless ad-hoc modifications.
All that proves is that A’s experiment was faulty. It seems to me that in order to prove that something is not possible you need to assume that it’s possible, and then prove that leads to a contradiction. A large number of failed experiments is merely evidence that whatever is IT is difficult to achieve.
As has been noted - but it bears repeating - abiogenesis happened. That much cannot be denied, even by the most fervent special creationist. Heck, Genesis even states as much, what with life being breathed into dirt and all. The dispute, really, is whether a creator or designer is required for life to originate from non-life. Ultimately, it can never be falsified that The Hand of God was at work behind the scenes (or even continues to be at work now). But, if a mechanism for abiogenesis that is based on physical laws can be found, then that obviates the need (though, again, not necessarily the action) for an intelligent designer. Natural selection, for example, doesn’t disprove God, it just posits a solution that works whether or not God exists. And, ultimately, that’s what is required for a scientific mechanism for abiogenesis.
Reminds me of an old Steve Martin routine:
HOW TO BE A MILLIONAIRE- First, getamilliondollars, then…
It’s MAGIC man!!! MAGIC!!!
In this real, physical, natural prosecesses world we live in, magic does not present itself. But you’ll somehow believe it’s okay to think it happened all the time a few thousand years ago when you weren’t there?
I plead artistic license. But yeah, there’s no ladder, meritorious hierarchy, or any ultimate goal or achievement in evolution. One can see that just by looking at Donald Trump…
There aren’t just two! Here is a list of several possible scenarios. Maybe some of you can indicate which one you lean in favor of, or give some alternatives:
The Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old and all species were specially created at that time.
A smaller number of “proto-species” were specially created 6,000 years ago and those that survived on Noah’s Ark “micro-evolved” over the last 4-5,000 years to their present forms.
The Earth is billions of years old, but each species (or proto-species) was created separately over the course of that time-frame.
The Earth is billions of years old and all living things evolved except humans, who were specially created 6-10,000 years ago, and remains of human ancestors are either advanced apes or decendants of Adam and Eve.
All life evolved, but the first bit of DNA was intelligently designed, and bouts of “punctuated equilibrium” were intelligently engineered to create new species from old ones.
All life evolved without any supernatural intervention.
You are assuming (perhaps correctly) that the best explanation for abiogenesis must necessarily be scientific, and you are assuming (perhaps correctly) that the best science is based on falsifiable hypotheses. ID proponents could argue that you have raised some interesting epistemelogical points but you still haven’t demonstrated that ID is not based on a valid argument.
Well, actually … it *is *an explanation. But I agree that positing the existence of an Intelligent Designer just leads to: “So what? You still don’t know anything about the nature of this Designer so all you’ve done is introduced an additional element that offers no additional expalantory power.” Unless it’s the best explanation of irreducible complexity …
Appeal to ignorance:
The world, as we perceive it, contains irreducible complexity.
We do not understand how this complexity could have been created unless there exists an Intelligent Designer.
We want to understand how this complexity could have been created.
Therefore, an Intelligent Designer exists.
No one? Actually, I know: It is.
“Nothing speculative …”? All absolute statements are wrong, right?
Have scientists stopped researching gravitons?
ID proponents generally accept evolution as a fact but they point out that, even though abiogenesis and evolution are distinctly different phenomena, evolution must have started at some point (abiogenesis) and continued in some way.
They argue that an Intelligent Designer started it and set the way that it continued.
Actually, what Newton formulated was the Law of Universal Gravitation. The insight that Newton gained in the apocryphal apple story was that the force that accelerated the apple was the same force that kept the planets in orbit. However, he didn’t formulate an explanation for the existence of gravity, so he was really just “speculating”, but it was well-reasoned speculation (??) that offered enormous explanatory power, and was verified so many times that it was no longer questioned. Until there was some new evidence that couldn’t be explained by the “Law”…
Not quite. Although it really depends on what you mean by “occurred” and what you mean by “once”, or even what you mean by “spontaneous”. :dubious: One instance of abiogenesis does not mean that life would have continued to exist. I doubt that you’re suggesting all life on Earth today is ultimately derived from one primitive self-replicating protein. In order for life to have been created and continued to exist there must have been countless other “coincidences”.
However, I think that when you say “once”, you mean once here on Earth, and not necessarily anywhere else in the universe.
How can this hypothesis be falsfied? By discovering something that isn’t there?
Actually, only those hypotheses that are specific enough to be tested, and are subject to being falsified. Unless, all hypotheses that are *scientific * are specific enough to be falsifiable.
It would have falsified a specific hypothesis. If it had failed, would scientists have abandoned the idea that life could have been created in a primordial soup? As you point out in a later post:
Was the Miller/Urey experiment based on a hypothesis that was properly and fully stated? And, did the experiment “fail”?
Not quite. The fact that we contemplate our existence is confirmation that the probability is 1 that the laws of physics are “just right” for this to happen. The “tree falling” conundrum is about perception and existence.
I’m not sure that this is a claim made by Intelligent Design proponents.
You present six possible alternatives for the existence of many species, but you present only two choices for the “origin of life”. Also, (unless I’m missing something) you seem to be saying that “punctuated equilibrium” is part of Intelligent Design, when, actually, it’s one theory of evolution that has been proposed to explain the fossil record.
The only arugments I’ve seen for “irreducible complexity” I’ve seen are based on statisitical gibberish. Do you have some verifiable basis to make this claim?
Lack of alternative explanations doesn’t make one available explanation necessarily true. Darwin and his contemporaries new nothing of genetics, that doesn’t mean inheritance happened by Lamarckian methods just because nobody had a better theory at the time.
True enough if such complexity actually exists.
This statement is a logical fallacy. Even taking your first 3 statements at face value, the logical conclusion is that EITHER an Intelligent Designer exists OR we do not understand. Nothing you’ve stated eliminates the “we do not understand” option, no matter how much we want to understand.
How can you possibly “know” this?? How many other planets have you investigated? At best, this is your personal belief, and not in any way a verifiable fact.
