What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Speedwell]

no doubt... but I am not the one that came up with this thread subject with that title.

"What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?"




Well no matter your preference - the title remains as it is when it comes to "Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution" getting falsified or not.



Indeed - the "any ol topic will do" replacement for the OP and title seems to have taken over - as you appear to suggest.

We can always get back on topic. What is the falsification of Abiogenesis? You claim that the Miller-Urey experiment falsifies it, but you haven't explained how.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can always get back on topic. What is the falsification of Abiogenesis? You claim that the Miller-Urey experiment falsifies it, but you haven't explained how.

Perhaps he is confused. The Miller-Urey experiment was not one that could falsify abiogenesis. It could only confirm its possibility, which it did. But it was not a falsification test in the same sense that a failure of phylogeny would be a fatal flaw for evolution if that happened. There are several different sorts of scientific tests. Some can confirm an idea, and those are actually the weakest of tests, they cannot be used against an idea. Then there are tests that this thread asks about, one's which can falsify an idea. Even if the Miller-Urey experiment failed it would not have refuted abiogenesis, it would only say that the natural formation of amino acids was unlikely with the given environment.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not aware that there is, amongst the speculations of scientists studying abiogenesis, even anything to falsify as yet.

 

[Norbert L]

I do not see how that experiment falsifies abiogenesis, or how experiments of that category are capable of falsifying abiogenesis. Perhaps you will explain your thinking.

I viewed a lecture by Dr. James Tour who is a synthetic organic chemist. He spoke specifically about the Urey/Miller experiment and ever since then the claim being made about abiogenesis is being done by not acknowledging the decomposition process. Proponents of abiogenesis are ignoring what happens even to simple organic compounds shortly after they are made.

Basically the window of opportunity to create a life form is far too short, there are no scientifically known conditions in Earth's history to have created it.

It seems to me that abiogenesis today is more science fiction than a hypothesis.

 

[Speedwell]

I viewed a lecture by Dr. James Tour who is a synthetic organic chemist. He spoke specifically about the Urey/Miller experiment and ever since then the claim being made about abiogenesis is being done by not acknowledging the decomposition process. Proponents of abiogenesis are ignoring what happens even to simple organic compounds shortly after they are made.

Basically the window of opportunity to create a life form is far too short, there are no scientifically known conditions in Earth's history to have created it.

It seems to me that abiogenesis today is more science fiction than a hypothesis.

What claim in particular are you referring to? Scientifically, abiogenesis is still pretty much of an open question.

 

[Ophiolite]

I viewed a lecture by Dr. James Tour who is a synthetic organic chemist. He spoke specifically about the Urey/Miller experiment and ever since then the claim being made about abiogenesis is being done by not acknowledging the decomposition process. Proponents of abiogenesis are ignoring what happens even to simple organic compounds shortly after they are made.

The Urey-Miller experiment did only one thing of lasting significance. It did not do any of the following:

• Demonstrate abiogenesis
• Demonstrate an important step in abiogenesis
• Demonstrate how prebiotic molecules were formed on the primeval Earth

The one lasting thing it did do was demonstrate that an investigation of aspects of abiogenesis and the test of some simple related hypotheses could be carried out in the laboratory. The experiment was symbolic. That was its importance.

Contrary to your view, the stability of prebiotic molecules is addressed by researchers in the field. Some doubters, the ill informed ones, seem unaware of how different the chemical environment was then and the impact that has on peristence. The more serious ones, while apparently recognising these differences, have not satisfactorily demonstrated that they are important. Without seeing Tour's lecture I cannot address his objections.

Frivolous Aside:
You mention that Dr. James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist. I was just curious as to where he might have been synthesised and whether you have any input from a real organic chemist.

 

[pitabread]

He spoke specifically about the Urey/Miller experiment and ever since then the claim being made about abiogenesis is being done by not acknowledging the decomposition process. Proponents of abiogenesis are ignoring what happens even to simple organic compounds shortly after they are made.

Eh? I don't know know what Tour is referring, but in my experience the stability and longevity of organic molecules during abiogenesis is most definitely a topic that comes up.

I suspect maybe something is getting lost in translation here.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Frivolous Aside:
You mention that Dr. James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist. I was just curious as to where he might have been synthesised and whether you have any input from a real organic chemist.

For most of my career my title was Natural Product Chemist. We always looked down on the synthetic guys....

 

[Ophiolite]

I viewed a lecture by Dr. James Tour who is a synthetic organic chemist.

It occured to me you meant "viewed" literally rather than a synoym for attended. Was this the lecture, James Tour: The Origin of Life, delivered at the Discovery Institute’s 2019 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith? If so it would have been helpful had you included the link. If not, where, when and what was it?

 

[BobRyan]

We can always get back on topic. What is the falsification of Abiogenesis? You claim that the Miller-Urey experiment falsifies it, but you haven't explained how.

It failed to show that the much-needed bricks can occur even in a contrived experiment. The hope at the start was the minimalist goal of "well we know that building the entire house is impossible - but maybe just-the-bricks could be shown to ARISE in nature given the proper conditions".

Well they got a result proving that no such result could have been used as the bricks for the proposed house building imaginary event. Since they did not have the much required uniform chiral orientation that living cells require. So then forget not being able to prove that a living organism can arise on its own -- they could not even show that the bricks for the house (the very basic parts as in the right amino acids in a context that could be used as the bricks) -- the start was not found to be viable much less the end.

This is very different from "I am a chemist and I can get an acid as the result of a chemical reaction" even if the acid is an amino acid. No one doubts that part of it. The "challenge" was to get viable amino acids and have them form in a contrived scenario hoping it would at least show a valid "start".

 

[BobRyan]

Perhaps he is confused. The Miller-Urey experiment was not one that could falsify abiogenesis. It could only confirm its possibility, .

There is the true optimist... "This test can only confirm"...

This is why I like coming to this forum.

 

[BobRyan]

I am not aware that there is, amongst the speculations of scientists studying abiogenesis, even anything to falsify as yet.

How about the assumed premise?

 

[BobRyan]

The one lasting thing it did do was demonstrate that an investigation of aspects of abiogenesis and the test of some simple related hypotheses could be carried out in the laboratory.

because until then no one thought that a test could be done for a theory about chemical reactions that would produce acids that are found in all living cells????

seriously???

no test could be done for such a chemical reaction??

not Strecker??? Adolph Strecker (October 21, 1822 – November 7, 1871)
not Gabriel??

seriously?

It is much more factual to admit that amino acids were available as the much expected result of chemical reactions ... decades before Urey / Miller.

The Urey/Miller objective was not to show that a chemical reaction can result in an amino acid as the product. That was "a given" at the time. Their task was more nuanced and specific to abiogenesis.

 

[Speedwell]

How about the assumed premise?

What is the "assumed premise?"

 

[BobRyan]

I am not aware that there is, amongst the speculations of scientists studying abiogenesis, even anything to falsify as yet.

How about the assumed premise?

What is the "assumed premise?"

This is why I love coming to this area of the forum

 

[Speedwell]

How about the assumed premise?



This is why I love coming to this area of the forum

Seems a simple question; can't you answer it?

 

[Ophiolite]

because until then no one thought that a test could be done for a theory about chemical reactions that would produce acids that are found in all living cells????

seriously???

Are you deliberately obtuse, or is it just happenchance you generally miss the point?

No one, until then, had contemplated what chemical reactions might be found on a primeval Earth that could have relevance to the origin of life and had designed an experiment to investigate potential reactions in one set of hypothetical conditions and had executed said experiment and had produced interesting results that were published.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It failed to show that the much-needed bricks can occur even in a contrived experiment. The hope at the start was the minimalist goal of "well we know that building the entire house is impossible - but maybe just-the-bricks could be shown to ARISE in nature given the proper conditions".

Well they got a result proving that no such result could have been used as the bricks for the proposed house building imaginary event. Since they did not have the much required uniform chiral orientation that living cells require. So then forget not being able to prove that a living organism can arise on its own -- they could not even show that the bricks for the house (the very basic parts as in the right amino acids in a context that could be used as the bricks) -- the start was not found to be viable much less the end.

This is very different from "I am a chemist and I can get an acid as the result of a chemical reaction" even if the acid is an amino acid. No one doubts that part of it. The "challenge" was to get viable amino acids and have them form in a contrived scenario hoping it would at least show a valid "start".

You have it backwards. The experiment demonstrated that the "bricks" can occur. And it was not a 'contrived environment'. It appears that you do not understand what they found. They found that amino acids do naturally form in what was thought to be the Early Earth atmosphere. Some doubts rose about that and it was done again later, again amino acids formed naturally in the second atmosphere. It has been done several times with different atmospheres and they kept forming amino acids.

What makes you think that this was not the case by the way? Have you been reading creationist sources again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is the true optimist... "This test can only confirm"...

This is why I like coming to this forum.

I see that you definitely did not understand the test. It has nothing to do with optimism. You also may not understand the concept of falsification.

It could only confirm the possibility of amino acids arising naturally in a prebiotic world. If it failed, which it did not do, it would not negate abiogenesis. It would only imply that that was not the path to the original amino acids. And guess what? Other sources of amino acids have ben found. In chondrite meteors for example:

Chondrite - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

Anyone else find it odd that creationists still obsess over the Miller-Urey experiment, when there has been ~70 years of research into abiogenesis since?Miller-Urey was hardly the final word on abiogenesis.

(Though I suppose it's no different than the similar obsession over Darwin, even though he's been dead for almost 140 years.)