What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Frank Robert]

Nope, this only proves intelligence can create life. I suspect this is possible.

In this case human intelligence would be merely discovering a way that life can arise from natural processes. It would not disprove the possibility that a deity created life on earth either miraculously or through natural processes.

The question is how did non-life arise into life. This is far from trivial.

Interesting observation. What what would it mean to you if question can't answered?

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

Yet you suspect it is possible.

 

[Astrid]

You seem to be appealing to common sense ... "however obvious it is that it did happen". This is an appeal to a logical fallacy. If you are a scientist you should know better.

If no one can say for sure, since it not currently possible, then the best we can say is that natural processes seem likely to cause abiogenesis based on a combinations of man made scenarios and man made experiments. The only way to establish what you are trying to establish is to find a primitive earth like planet, set up the necessary controls and then study the formation of organic materials.

I have no doubt that natural processes created organic materials and probably life as well. However, this is not the same as demonstrating it empirically. We can develop lots of stories of how we think it is happened and then confirm the science in the lab but this still doesn't establish the science in the same way as controlling for known variables and then conducting experiments in the manner that non-historical science does. There is no way to know whether we have a good idea of what we are studying. I can accept historical science as a necessary condition for arguing a theory but not a sufficient condition.

Unless you wish to introduce magic ( talk about fallacy)
then abio had to have occurred somewhere sometime.

Again you go back to time machines and space travel,
along with the excessively, yes OBVIOUS point that we will
never know exactly what happened.

As for doubt or lack thereof-
If you were a scientist or even a moderately informed
amateur you would know that amino acids for,m
under a variety of conditions, and have noted their
recent discovery on a comet.

If you have a point to make it is still not evident.

 

[Astrid]

Now you are putting words in my mouth - I never said that amino acids couldn't form apart from human interaction or that they haven't been found anywhere. I know they have been found in space. However, finding them in space does not establish that they were created on a primitive earth - as likely as that now seems.

You know it now but you sure didn't mention it earlier.
"I don't doubt" is a very odd way to say
you know something.

Try it in court! "Are you a qualified expert."
You respond:
"I don't doubt it".

As for. "establishing" what happened
on earth, your word is "prove" and that does
not happen in science.
The probability that amino acids never formed
on earth without ID appears to be extremely low.

Now, do you have a point?

 

[tas8831]

You seem to be appealing to common sense ... "however obvious it is that it did happen". This is an appeal to a logical fallacy. If you are a scientist you should know better.

If no one can say for sure, since it not currently possible, then the best we can say is that natural processes seem likely to cause abiogenesis based on a combinations of man made scenarios and man made experiments. The only way to establish what you are trying to establish is to find a primitive earth like planet, set up the necessary controls and then study the formation of organic materials.

I have no doubt that natural processes created organic materials and probably life as well. However, this is not the same as demonstrating it empirically. We can develop lots of stories of how we think it is happened and then confirm the science in the lab but this still doesn't establish the science in the same way as controlling for known variables and then conducting experiments in the manner that non-historical science does. There is no way to know whether we have a good idea of what we are studying.

I note that despite your unnecessary verbosity, you failed to answer his question.
interesting.
I also note your use of the phrase "historical science." A slip, perhaps?

I can accept historical science as a necessary condition for arguing a theory but not a sufficient condition.

I could not care less what you can accept.

 

[tas8831]

Strahler (1987, 233) questioned the number and regularity of the Green River “varves,” a good question given the proposed fluctuations in the lake level:

The Green River couplets are indeed a remarkable accumulation; their regularity and vast numbers are mind-boggling. How could such uniform deposition continue for 5 to 8 million years?

Varves formed in lakes today or claimed to have formed in lakes associated with the Ice Age are often chaotic (Oard 2009a).

Many creation geologists think the Green River Formation is sediment deposited in a post-Flood lake (Austin 2003; Brand 1997, 2007a; Whitmore 2006a, b, c; Whitmore and Garner 2008; Whitmore and Wise 2008; Wise 2002). The Wasatch Formation, which lies below and intertongues with the Green River Formation, is therefore considered postdiluvial (after the Genesis Flood); it is a mostly coarse-grained formation generally located closer to the mountains. The Bridger and Washakie Formations lie above the Green River Formation and are also considered by many to be post-Flood; they are mostly volcaniclastic sediments (Brand 2007b).


The volume of sediment making up the Green River Formation that must be eroded, transported, and deposited is huge—over 100,000 km3. This enormous scale fits other formations deposited in the year-long Deluge, such as the Coconino Sandstone and its equivalent formations to the east with an estimated volume of 40,000 km3 (Austin 1994a, 36).

Second, the amount of oil in the oil shale is huge (Bartis et al. 2005).

Third, massive erosion has resulted in at least 600 m of erosion over large areas (fig. 2). Such erosion, including at the continental divide in the Greater Green River Basin, fits in with the Retreating Stage of the biblical Flood (Walker 1994),
If you wish to argue with the creationist view, I suggest you go do so here:
Green River Formation Likely Didn't Form in a Postdiluvial Lake

Cool - a creationist essay!

Are you a limnologist? Geologist? Do tell how you concluded that the claims in your creationist essay are the truth.

 

[Astrid]

I note that despite your unnecessary verbosity, you failed to answer his question.
interesting.
I also note your use of the phrase "historical science." A slip, perhaps?

I could not care less what you can accept.

I note that despite your unnecessary verbosity, you failed to answer his question.
interesting.
I also note your use of the phrase "historical science." A slip, perhaps?

I could not care less what you can accept.

I noticed the " historical science" thing.
The very mention of it is generally a creationist tell.

 

[tas8831]

I don't " need" to do any such thing. Casting doubt on the current model is enough.
People will believe what they want to regardless, but there's always the " swing voters".

Is that what you think you are doing - 'casting doubt' on the current model?

Do you think 'casting doubt' on evolution is enough to make people accept YECism or IDCism as the truth?

Well, I suppose it could be - using your analogy, a LOT of low information voters believed Trump's lies and actually did not see how stupid he is. But I digress...

It is not enough to do away with the old theory, you have to replace it with something better (paraphrase of Feynman). You literally have nothing to replace it with.

 

[tas8831]

Who said I'm trying to influence evolutionary biologists? It's a forum, for Pete's sake. There's always lurkers.

Yes, and I'm sure they are totally convinced by your naysaying and references to creationist rants - and lets not forget the requisite fake martyrdom!

 

[Astrid]

Cool - a creationist essay!

Are you a limnologist? Geologist? Do tell how you concluded that the claims in your creationist essay are the truth.

Many creationist geologists....all six of them, maybe?
Since it is impossible to be a yec with scientific
integrity, their statements are worthless.

 

[tas8831]

So? Do you have it's organs? It's feathers? Long boned tail, or long tail bone? Having a long tail bone doesn't make it a dino.

It seems that you assume that everyone is as under-informed and immune to learning as your typical creationists are. You might be singing to the choir, but the lurkers are probably not so impressed.

 

[Astrid]

Is that what you think you are doing - 'casting doubt' on the current model?

Do you think 'casting doubt' on evolution is enough to make people accept YECism or IDCism as the truth?

Well, I suppose it could be - using your analogy, a LOT of low information voters believed Trump's lies and actually did not see how stupid he is. But I digress...

It is not enough to do away with the old theory, you have to replace it with something better (paraphrase of Feynman). You literally have nothing to replace it with.

What did Feynman say?
Not sure what "enough" refers to but you know, the Cambrian
bunny would tend to disprove ToE ( and pretty much blow physics
out of the water) even if no new explanation were at hand.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Love those creationist buzz-phrases - why not just come right out and say "since the experiments were done in a building designed by men, it is proof of ID!" a\nd be done with it?

I'm not an ID supporter as you seem to assume. However, I'm in favor of allowing any project that might help to advance knowledge - even if it seems to the mainstream a bit crazy (think Galileo and the scientist of his time who thought his ideas were crazy. Innovators are always considered crazy until they aren't). Although I believe that some form of natural evolution is the case, I'm not entirely satisfied with the current state of evolution. Lots of brilliant non-creationist privately would like to see a better theory as well. I would like to see it on a much better empirical and mathematical foundation (my background is math and theoretical physics).

There was nothing originally problematic with the theoretical and logical structure of ID (contrary to what some people have said). It is basically patterned after forensics which is a very viable science. I think it was very much behind the 8-ball to begin with because of consilience in the sciences but it was originally a viable project. However, I think time has shown that it is a failed program. It has produced some interesting ideas but nothing that comes close to challenging Evolution empirically. ID proponents along with secular scientists who were brave enough to agree with ID that current theories of evolution are not completely adequate, have raised some very good questions. I don't think any of them are ultimately unanswerable within an evolutionary framework, I just don't think we have quite reached that framework yet.

I have a hard time believing you've done such experiments, but sure, whatever.

The Urey - Miller experiment is not that hard to do. Any intelligent kid interested in science can do it in a descent HS lab.

Who came up with the idea of the reducing atmosphere?

Miller: Oparin, a Russian scientist, began the modern idea of the origin of life when he published a pamphlet in 1924. His idea was called the heterotrophic hypothesis: that the first organisms were heterotrophic, meaning they got their organic material from the environment, rather than having to make it, like blue-green algae. This was an important idea. Oparin also suggested that the less biosynthesis there is, the easier it is to form a living organism. Then he proposed the idea of the reducing atmosphere where you might make organic compounds.

He also proposed that the first organisms were coacervates, a special type of colloid. Nobody takes that last part very seriously anymore, but in 1936, this was reasonable since DNA was not known to be the genetic material..

In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions.

How old are you? I knew about all this stuff in the 1970's from a Scientific American issue on Evolution (before it became a dumbed down magazine to appeal to the masses). I was in grade 10 and got a hold of some universities texts and studied up on enantiomers. One of my science teachers (recognized by national awards, as one of the best science teachers in Canada at the time) was a Chemistry major from a first rate university, so he pointed me in the right direction. I developed and did an experiment to try to develop a theory for how L-form amino acids could be selected over D-form on a primitive earth. My research was acknowledged by winning awards at the national science fair competition in Canada. It was simple little experiment, but creative and well constructed for a kid in grade 10.

Tell us about the famous electrical discharge experiment.

Miller: The experiments were done in Urey's lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, "I'd like to do those experiments". The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks.

Yes, I've read these accounts when I was studying chemical evolution in the 1970's in grade 10.

from Exobiology.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Still not sure what your point is. Do you apply the same skepticism to theories about the early universe, that we can't know anything without having another proto universe to observe?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Interesting. It is almost as if you read some of Robert Hazen's work and are pretending to have come up with it in high school. Impressive. Not really.

I don't really care if you believe I did this or not. I was in grade 10 and had read an issue of Scientific American dedicated completely to evolution (you can go back and find the issue from the 1970's). I became interested in the part on abiogenesis and enantiomers (amino acids to be more specific) and the work of Oparin etc. (My chemistry teacher at the time, was from one of Canada's best universities for Chemistry and he himself won Canadian wide awards for teaching science) The article on abiogenesis discussed how L and D forms are racemic mixtures when you do something like a Urey - Miller type experiment. However, for some reason, most/all life is L-form. I decided I want to try to come up with a theory on what might have selected for L over D. At that time there seemed to be no one who had ever done such an experiment (no research on this was mentioned in the article) and I wanted to come up with something creative to study. I designed and carried out a simple experiment. My little project was judged to be quite good and I won awards at science fairs locally, regionally and nationally at Canada's national science competition. I still have all my awards from that project kicking around somewhere.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Kind of roundabout way to say we don't
have a time machine.
Of course nobody can say for sure how it
happened, however obvious it is that it did
happen.
Are you an organic chemist?

BTW I didn't answer your last question. No I'm not an organic chemist (this makes no difference to our discussion of an old experiment from the 1950's) but I did study university chemistry (organic and inorganic) at the university level when I did my project in grade 10 in some depth. Also, I did take lots of chemistry when I did my degrees in theoretical physics and mathematics later as well.

I think your problem is understanding that I'm not attacking science. I have studied science extensively since I entered high school and have degrees in it. However, I have also studied other areas of knowledge, such as philosophy in detail too. Having a wide knowledge in different areas, helps make me be more qualified to makes me a true skeptic unlike what you seem to be. You seem to just follow the party line of scientism without critical thinking, this my friend is just following the leader and not showing much or any independent thinking. You assumed a lot about me without even checking - poor methodology on your part. Also, I notice you did contest me calling you out on your logic slip up.

What aspects of science are you skeptical about? (In current chemistry, and physics) If you aren't then you are just following the currently accepted conventional wisdom (more or less a follower) which for science is always changing and hopefully enlarging. In fact, good science and scientists are always challenging scientific models rigorously and testing rigorously the boundaries of present knowledge, theory and praxis. Think Einstein, Galileo, and Darwin to name some of the most obvious examples. None of these just went along with the status quo.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Sure you have, for real. You are definetly an scientist. Definitly.

Cute sarcasm. You obviously don't know much about this experiment. Have you ever done it? Any intelligent high school kid can do it with a bit of help. My friend and I did it in grade 10. We did have a first rate lab and help from a chemistry science teacher who had won awards for being one of the best science teacher in Canada. Our school, although only 150, was known to be a powerhouse in science in Canada. With many kids winning major awards including gold medals in the senior divisions (similar to what used to be called the Westinghouse Awards and Competition in USA). How, much do you know about science?

 

[VirOptimus]

Cute sarcasm. You obviously don't know much about this experiment. Have you ever done it? Any intelligent high school kid can do it with a bit of help. My friend and I did it in grade 10. We did have a first rate lab and help from a chemistry science teacher who had won awards for being one of the best science teacher in Canada. Our school, although only 150, was known to be a powerhouse in science in Canada. With many kids winning major awards including gold medals in the senior divisions (similar to what used to be called the Westinghouse Awards and Competition in USA). How, much do you know about science?

Enough to see hot air.

 

[Astrid]

BTW I didn't answer your last question. No I'm not an organic chemist (this makes no difference to our discussion of an old experiment from the 1950's) but I did study university chemistry (organic and inorganic) at the university level when I did my project in grade 10 in some depth. Also, I did take lots of chemistry when I did my degrees in theoretical physics and mathematics later as well.

I think your problem is understanding that I'm not attacking science. I have studied science extensively since I entered high school and have degrees in it. However, I have also studied other areas of knowledge, such as philosophy in detail too. Having a wide knowledge in different areas, helps make me be more qualified to makes me a true skeptic unlike what you seem to be. You seem to just follow the party line of scientism without critical thinking, this my friend is just following the leader and not showing much or any independent thinking. You assumed a lot about me without even checking - poor methodology on your part. Also, I notice you did contest me calling you out on your logic slip up.

What aspects of science are you skeptical about? (In current chemistry, and physics) If you aren't then you are just following the currently accepted conventional wisdom (more or less a follower) which for science is always changing and hopefully enlarging. In fact, good science and scientists are always challenging scientific models rigorously and testing rigorously the boundaries of present knowledge, theory and praxis. Think Einstein, Galileo, and Darwin to name some of the most obvious examples. None of these just went along with the status quo.

In the assume dept., the air of assumed superiority
that all here note and don't take well, does nothing
for your credibility any more than it advances your
still unmentioned point.
More assuming. Like the one about "attacking science",
the charming ones about "follow the leader",
false skeptic, etc, also false.

I did the p Chem and o Chem and analytical stuff.
I nor the other non creationists need lessons in basic
science, the condescending can stop anytime.

I know enough to know a person can easily get
in over their heads trying to talk o Chem as
you do.

As for logical fallacy, there wasn't one.
As for philosophers and everything looking like
a nail, that was just an example of why the
Phil students are the most tiresome people on
campus. Or were, maybe the woke have crowded
them out.
You've still not mentioned what you might be trying to
get at.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

In this case human intelligence would be merely discovering a way that life can arise from natural processes. It would not disprove the possibility that a deity created life on earth either miraculously or through natural processes.

Correct!

Interesting observation. What what would it mean to you if question can't answered?
Yet you suspect it is possible.

Very good question. I realize that my comments may seem somewhat contradictory but I don't think they are. Hopefully I can better elaborate below.

First of all, when I indicate - "can't be answered", I meaning today not ever. I think it is possible in the future, as I describe below.
The best example I can think of is from abiogenesis. I don't think questions like this when framed as historical science can be answered adequately within an historical science framework. They can be answered in the sense that a narrative can be produced (if possible and possibly a very logical narrative) that makes sense and can be tested. But it is just a narrative that can't be repeated and validated the same way that a theory in the modern context in a lab or the field can be validated in the here and now. The further you go back in time, the more uncertainty you inject into the process. At some point in time, this uncertainty is greater than what any amount of knowledge and good experimental designs can overcome. To me this is a big problem and a major limitation in my view.

So in summary, I don't think questions that involve historical science can ultimately be adequately answered in the context of historical science if they are too far back in time. They may be right, but I just see too much uncertainty.

However, I suspect it is possible if we can overcome the historical science limitation problem and the uncertainty this causes. For abiogenesis, this would be very possible if we can study an early earth type set of planets and do a program of science on them that will establish a body of knowledge that conforms to how we do non-historical science today. This doesn't seem impossible to me as long as we can somehow eventually reach comparable planets to what early earth was probably like. Strictly speaking, we still can't be sure that we have completely simulated an early earth type situation but given a wide enough study of the universe and a large enough sample of planets and the consilience with other branches of science and their knowledge, it is at least in principle I think possible. (no current reason to think that some time in the future we won't be able to do this if you subscribe at all to what Dr. Kaku says in his book Physics of the Impossible.)

I'm trying to be very conservative and strict above in the spirit of good science - I'm not trying to throw up road blocks like extreme skeptics or creationist do.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

In the assume dept., the air of assumed superiority
that all here note and don't take well, does nothing
for your credibility any more than it advances your
still unmentioned point.
More assuming. Like the one about "attacking science",
the charming ones about "follow the leader",
false skeptic, etc, also false.

I did the p Chem and o Chem and analytical stuff.
I nor the other non creationists need lessons in basic
science, the condescending can stop anytime.

I know enough to know a person can easily get
in over their heads trying to talk o Chem as
you do.

As for logical fallacy, there wasn't one.
As for philosophers and everything looking like
a nail, that was just an example of why the
Phil students are the most tiresome people on
campus. Or were, maybe the woke have crowded
them out.
You've still not mentioned what you might be trying to
get at.

You seem to get pretty testy when you are challenged a little bit. I'm sorry if you see my challenge as "the air of assumed superiority..." Perhaps you are mirroring your own behaviors and actions with others. Although I can't say because I don't know you. You seem to have very rigid definitions and pre-conceived ideas about what a skeptic is and does. I'm sorry if I don't conform to your categories of what a skeptic must and must not do. Most people view me as quiet and unassuming, which I usually am. However, when someone makes ridiculous accusations and claims like you have, I will respond.

Again, I'm sorry you get really testy when I throw a bit of sarcasm your way. I've found that people who know lots of science and are secure in their knowledge don't need to worry about how much of this and how much of that they know, or whether they have taken this course or that course or how many PhD's they have. I'm not saying you are this type of person but you are acting like it. Perhaps your defense mechanisms have just kicked in too much. Perhaps you are really a nice person.

You also are very hung up on me not falling into your nice neat categories and preconceived ideas - like being a creationist or ID proponent. Why is that? Does it shake up your little world too much! Unless you've lived a pretty sheltered life, you should have realized by now that there are lots of different people across the spectrum with different beliefs and ideas. But perhaps I expect too much. Perhaps you need to get out more with philosophical and other humanity types from school and have a good time. I have no problem being a science geek too (often got labelled this when I was in university) but spending too many hours in the books can make a person pretty one dimensional (not saying this is you, but I have known lots of people that talk like you who spent way too much time studying science in some little hole). If this is you (hopefully not), take some advice, the world tends to favor people who are social and spend time learning emotional intelligence skills by interacting with a wide range of people - even if they are string theorists (and btw - one of my best friends in U wrote papers with Witten and Polchinski in grad school and after, if you know who they are, on developing membrane theory)

Do you know much beyond science? Have you read much beyond your chemistry?

Anyway, in responding to your divergent thinking and comments in your posts on what we were talking about originally (which is usually what creationists and ID proponents do when they can't answer what their opponents bring up) lets bring the discussion back to the original discussion, shall we.