What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Bertrand Russell White]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

Modern science has adopted methodological naturalism and doesn't allow non-material theories and ideas to influence science. The new priesthood, like the older priesthood, jealously guards their claimed domain.

Abiogenesis is neither verifiable nor falsifiable except in some sort of rational sense (so basically a fictional sense). We can only guess the initial conditions based on a huge number of assumptions. We can't repeat experiments that simulate the early earth because we can only guess what the early earth was like. No way to know except to go back in time.

Let me give a very simple example of how hard this is. When I was in grade X, I decided to try to determine why life has primarily L-form amino acids. If one take mixtures of gases and chemicals and heat them you get mixtures of all the amino acids found in all life that make up proteins and our DNA. However, this mixture of amino acids has both Left hand or L-form and Right hand or D-form amino acids (the D and L forms are exactly the same atoms but in mirror images to one another). However, as I say, life only has the L-form type. I tried to design an experiment to show how the L-form could have come to dominate over D. My hypothesis was that early rocks may have provided a selective advantage for L-forms. I did some simple experiments that were inconclusive.

In order to show something as simple as what I tried to do above, would require advanced simulations interactions between amino acids and the surface area of rocks that probably existed at the time, billions of years ago. This is a non-trivial activity involving advanced knowledge of quantum chemistry, advanced dynamics, advanced computer simulation (probably involving supercomputers or even quantum computers whose power doesn't exist yet), advanced geology, early earth history, advanced molecular chemistry bonding, advanced mathematics such as advanced topology, advanced partial differential equations etc. Even with all this, the best that can be hoped for is a scenario that may have missed all types of factors that we don't know we don't know. Having no way to repeat the conditions from a primitive earth (because we can't go back in time and we don't know them) we are stuck.

I always smile when secular philosophers of science and even scientists make these types of problems seem trivial and imply that they will probably be explainable in the future. This doesn't imply that a god was involved - however, both a god narrative and naturalist narrative are about equal with all of the problems that would need to be overcome to rule in favor of some naturalistic narrative.

 

[sjastro]

What's this about honest scientists?
Scientists pale into insignificance when compared to mathematicians in terms of pure evilness.

Mathematicians have the found each element in the infinite set { 0, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39 ...} is an evil number.
What other occupation appreciates evilness to such a degree in their work?

 

[Astrid]

Modern science has adopted methodological naturalism and doesn't allow non-material theories and ideas to influence science. The new priesthood, like the older priesthood, jealously guards their claimed domain.

Abiogenesis is neither verifiable nor falsifiable except in some sort of rational sense (so basically a fictional sense). We can only guess the initial conditions based on a huge number of assumptions. We can't repeat experiments that simulate the early earth because we can only guess what the early earth was like. No way to know except to go back in time.

Let me give a very simple example of how hard this is. When I was in grade X, I decided to try to determine why life has primarily L-form amino acids. If one take mixtures of gases and chemicals and heat them you get mixtures of all the amino acids found in all life that make up proteins and our DNA. However, this mixture of amino acids has both Left hand or L-form and Right hand or D-form amino acids (the D and L forms are exactly the same atoms but in mirror images to one another). However, as I say, life only has the L-form type. I tried to design an experiment to show how the L-form could have come to dominate over D. My hypothesis was that early rocks may have provided a selective advantage for L-forms. I did some simple experiments that were inconclusive.

In order to show something as simple as what I tried to do above, would require advanced simulations interactions between amino acids and the surface area of rocks that probably existed at the time, billions of years ago. This is a non-trivial activity involving advanced knowledge of quantum chemistry, advanced dynamics, advanced computer simulation (probably involving supercomputers or even quantum computers whose power doesn't exist yet), advanced geology, early earth history, advanced molecular chemistry bonding, advanced mathematics such as advanced topology, advanced partial differential equations etc. Even with all this, the best that can be hoped for is a scenario that may have missed all types of factors that we don't know we don't know. Having no way to repeat the conditions from a primitive earth (because we can't go back in time and we don't know them) we are stuck.

I always smile when secular philosophers of science and even scientists make these types of problems seem trivial and imply that they will probably be explainable in the future. This doesn't imply that a god was involved - however, both a god narrative and naturalist narrative are about equal with all of the problems that would need to be overcome to rule in favor of some naturalistic narrative.

I expect if someone starts life in a lab that it will
turn out you are wrong on the verifiable bit.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Evangelical is not the same as fundamentalist. Fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally. Evangelicals are interested in spreading the word and converting others. One can be both or only one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive groups. Collins does appear to be an evangelical. He is definitely not a fundamentalist.

I wasn't looking for the most conservative option possible,but the last 4 years has taught me to consider them equivalent. But, yes, Collins is on the "good" side of the spectrum.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm an honest scientist. How's the well informed YEC search going?

My ophthalmologist is a YEC.

So is my pastor, who has two doctorates (D.Div. and Phd in Theology).

 

[SelfSim]

Abiogenesis is neither verifiable nor falsifiable except in some sort of rational sense (so basically a fictional sense). We can only guess the initial conditions based on a huge number of assumptions. We can't repeat experiments that simulate the early earth because we can only guess what the early earth was like. No way to know except to go back in time.

The predictions of properly formed Abiogenesis hypotheses are objectively testable.

That one may choose a logic based verification/falsifiability, approach (with some posit, merely assumed as being true), is an approach which can only point back to the originally assumed truth value of that posit. That approach is not how science is approaching the issue.

A test for active sets of high molecular weight, (perhaps self-replicating), organic molecules, executed in a hydrocarbon lake shore on a moon such as Titan, by a tuned mass spectrometer, along with tests for metabolism, is a test resulting from the predictions of an Abiogenesis hypothesis. (There are others).

 

[SelfSim]

What's this about honest scientists?
Scientists pale into insignificance when compared to mathematicians in terms of pure evilness.

(But you left out Engineers!)

 

[sjastro]

(But you left out Engineers!)

Some occupations are so depraved I refuse to acknowledge them.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

I expect if someone starts life in a lab that it will
turn out you are wrong on the verifiable bit.

Nope, this only proves intelligence can create life. I suspect this is possible. The question is how did non-life arise into life. This is far from trivial. Think Pasteur showing that ideas of spontaneous generation were false. Abiogenesis is just a sophisticated form of spontaneous generation. No one has ever even in principle explained how this might be possible. Check out Daniel Dennett's pathetic discussion of how might be possible in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea (possibly the weakest argument in his book).

 

[AV1611VET]

(But you left out Engineers!)

Some occupations are so depraved I refuse to acknowledge them.

 

[SelfSim]

Priests, Minsters, Pastors (etc) fell off the chart!?
(In the same was Engineers did, I guess?).

 

[AV1611VET]

Priests, Minsters, Pastors (etc) fell off the chart!?
(In the same was Engineers did, I guess?).

They work in a different kind of lab.

 

[SelfSim]

They work in a different kind of lab.

The lab of 'depravity' too eh?

 

[Bradskii]

My ophthalmologist is a YEC.

If someone is going to mess with my eyes with sharp pointy instruments I would prefer her not to have a track record of rejecting basic science. I wouldn't want her removing a mote from my eye.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

I expect if someone starts life in a lab that it will
turn out you are wrong on the verifiable bit.

One other point to my response to your comment to clarify. When I responded, I was referring to non-life creating life. Basically chemical evolution and spontaneous generation. It is infinitely more complex to generate life from completely non-living matter than from existing life. As I said, I suspect humans (complex living entities) will create life in the lab at some point. This, however, is far different than non-life creating life. Amino acids were easily created in the lab in the 1950's but even here it was done by intelligent agents, constraining the conditions, and controlling the conditions such as: the amount of methane, and other gases; controlling concentrations, heat, preventing reverse reactions etc. About the only way I could see determining this process is possible is finding worlds that are likely like primitive earth and observing whether they can create amino acids, amino acid chains etc. If we could do this to a statistically significant degree, then a case could be made for abiogenesis.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Abiogenesis is just a sophisticated form of spontaneous generation. No one has ever even in principle explained how this might be possible.

Not so ..

 

[SelfSim]

It is infinitely more complex to generate life from completely non-living matter than from existing life.

Evidence please?

As I said, I suspect humans (complex living entities) will create life in the lab at some point. This, however, is far different than non-life creating life. Amino acids were easily created in the lab in the 1950's but even here it was done by intelligent agents, constraining the conditions, and controlling the conditions such as: the amount of methane, and other gases; controlling concentrations, heat, preventing reverse reactions etc. About the only way I could see determining this process is possible is finding worlds that are likely like primitive earth and observing whether they can create amino acids, amino acid chains etc. If we could do this to a statistically significant degree, then a case could be made for abiogenesis.

And, again, you, (along with others), need to read up on autocatalysis and autocatalytic sets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My ophthalmologist is a YEC.

So is my pastor, who has two doctorates (D.Div. and Phd in Theology).

Yes, doctors can be either very ignorant or very dishonest. And of course you know that applies double to pastors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, this only proves intelligence can create life. I suspect this is possible. The question is how did non-life arise into life. This is far from trivial. Think Pasteur showing that ideas of spontaneous generation were false. Abiogenesis is just a sophisticated form of spontaneous generation. No one has ever even in principle explained how this might be possible. Check out Daniel Dennett's pathetic discussion of how might be possible in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea (possibly the weakest argument in his book).

No, abiogenesis is nothing like spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was actually a creationist belief. There was a belief that there was a life essence that would cause modern bacteria or even more complex organism to arise on their own. Pasteur showed that modern life will not arise for those reasons. He did not even tough on abiogenesis, no one had the knowledge to even try to tackle that problem during that time.

 

[Astrid]

Nope, this only proves intelligence can create life. I suspect this is possible. The question is how did non-life arise into life. This is far from trivial. Think Pasteur showing that ideas of spontaneous generation were false. Abiogenesis is just a sophisticated form of spontaneous generation. No one has ever even in principle explained how this might be possible. Check out Daniel Dennett's pathetic discussion of how might be possible in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea (possibly the weakest argument in his book).

Nope. By simple meaning of the word,
lab creation is abio.
Pasteur only demonstrated that he failed to gennerate
life by the specific things he tried.

Until recently nobody knew how continents move
and probably would deny they'd seen them move.

It's more than little presumptuous to think you
or me or the man behind the tree has the capacity
to determine that life cannot spontaneously arise.