Is Evolution and abiogenesis a pseudoscience?

[VitalOne]

Science has to meet certain criteria:
* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

But you can't disprove natural selection and you can't disprove abiogenesis.....macroevolution isn't empirically testable and falsifiable......any attempt to disprove Neo-Darwinism and abiogenesis is considered a religious idea for some reason and biasely rejected...Neo-Darwinists do not admit that other assertions may be correct....

 

[w1z4rd]

No.

Firstly Evolution is a theory. Abiogenisis is a separate hypothesis that is not involved in the theory of evolution.

Evolution explains the diversity in life and is very tested theory.
Abiogenisis explains the origins of life and is a hypothesis.

I think you need to get your facts a little clearer. As it appears you are trying to distort the facts.

 

[VitalOne]

I never said evolution and abiogenesis were the same, abiogenesis has yet to be empirically verified, is not based on empirical observations, and fails to meet almost all the criteria for being a science

Natural selection cannot be disproven, any attempts to disprove it are met with bias criticism, macroevolution cannot be disproven, nor can it be empirically observed or tested

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I never said evolution and abiogenesis were the same, abiogenesis has yet to be empirically verified, is not based on empirical observations, and fails to meet almost all the criteria for being a science

Natural selection cannot be disproven, any attempts to disprove it are met with bias criticism, macroevolution cannot be disproven, nor can it be empirically observed or tested

Steps of abiogenesis have been empirically verified. Or do you want to recreate the whole process? That would be a silly thing to ask, something a creationist would do. Would you also ask for scientists to recreate the big bang? For creationists to recreate creation?

 

[VitalOne]

Steps of abiogenesis have been empirically verified. Or do you want to recreate the whole process? That would be a silly thing to ask, something a creationist would do. Would you also ask for scientists to recreate the big bang? For creationists to recreate creation?

No they haven't been empirically verified...no one has shown them in a lab...its just speculation...again you bring up creationism to dodge out of the claims

 

[RoyLennigan]

No, pseudoscience is just a rare occurance that has not been given enough scientific attention to shed light on its mysterious nature. Evolution, on the other hand, has been given way too much attention. Abiogenesis is almost sure to have occured. If it did not, then life has always existed perpetually in the universe and came from somewhere else in space.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Science has to meet certain criteria:
* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

No human concept can be any of these completely. But evolution and abiogenesis are all of these things enough to be considered a science. All things are science because the method of science is able to explain anything (though impossible to explain everything), but most people don't see it that way and so it doesn't work as well as it should.

The reason why science is becoming less valid to us (in general) is for two reasons:
Theories and explanations are nearing (at an exponential rate) the limit of the human mind to comprehend them.
Science works better if we are able to trust from person to person. Without trust, we have to constantly question, and we get stuck on the same things over and over, never getting anywhere.

 

[VitalOne]

No, pseudoscience is just a rare occurance that has not been given enough scientific attention to shed light on its mysterious nature. Evolution, on the other hand, has been given way too much attention. Abiogenesis is almost sure to have occured. If it did not, then life has always existed perpetually in the universe and came from somewhere else in space.

No something that cannot be falsified and doesn't follow the scientific method is a pseudoscience.....

I find it strange that you surmount the faith to say that abiogenesis is almost sure to have occured when no empirical evidence points to that conclusion...its just speculation....which is why a lot of biologists now favor that a meteor must have crashed with life already on it.....

 

[RoyLennigan]

No something that cannot be falsified and doesn't follow the scientific method is a pseudoscience.....

I find it strange that you surmount the faith to say that abiogenesis is almost sure to have occured when no empirical evidence points to that conclusion...its just speculation....which is why a lot of biologists now favor that a meteor must have crashed with life already on it.....

You're not getting what I mean. I am saying that all things are explainable, and that we should look for the evidence at hand, instead of just taking what we think we know for granted and arguing endlessly. In part, I am on your side, but you are being too self-righteous to pick up on that. I am saying that pseudoscience is a misleading term and that nothing should be labeled as such.

I say that abiogenesis almost certainly occured because life is here. Can't you at least see that? So something must have happened to cause life to get here. I am taking the word at its most basic definition here--Life from non-life. And you only attacked me for the first half of my belief (the other being that life existed perpetually). That shows me that you don't care about what actually happened, you only care about taking down the people you don't agree with.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

No they haven't been empirically verified...no one has shown them in a lab...its just speculation...again you bring up creationism to dodge out of the claims

Yes, they have. Steps of abiogenesis have been shown in the lab.

See the classic Miller-Urey experiments for instance.

So you always lie?

 

[VitalOne]

You're not getting what I mean. I am saying that all things are explainable, and that we should look for the evidence at hand, instead of just taking what we think we know for granted and arguing endlessly. In part, I am on your side, but you are being too self-righteous to pick up on that.

I say that abiogenesis almost certainly occured because life is here. Can't you at least see that? So something must have happened to cause life to get here. I am taking the word at its most basic definition here--Life from non-life. And you only attacked me for the first half of my belief (the other being that life existed perpetually). That shows me that you don't care about what actually happened, you only care about taking down the people you don't agree with.

Well I'm saying it should be considered a pseudoscience if there's no objective evidence for it....otherwise how different is it from astrology or any other pseudoscience? Its all based on what could've happened, what could be true without any objective evidence....

Also your assertion that abiogenesis must have happened is debatable....as for me taking down people who don't agree with me....I clearly saw that you agreed in a way, but disagreed in another way...

 

[VitalOne]

Yes, they have. Steps of abiogenesis have been shown in the lab.

See the classic Miller-Urey experiments for instance.

So you always lie?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Miller's experiments only show that amino acids arise....also where's the genetic code system...no where to be found in labs...the steps of self-replicating polymers forming protobacteria have not been shown in labs...

 

[spuriousmonkey]

oh my!? You don't understand basic English?

Do you know what a step is?

I think it is clear now what your motive is Mr Pseudoscience troll. You are only seeking answers that fit your creationist views.

 

[Saquist]

Well I'm saying it should be considered a pseudoscience if there's no objective evidence for it....otherwise how different is it from astrology or any other pseudoscience? Its all based on what could've happened, what could be true without any objective evidence....

Also your assertion that abiogenesis must have happened is debatable....as for me taking down people who don't agree with me....I clearly saw that you agreed in a way, but disagreed in another way...

yes, it seems this term that has gone mainstream seems to have very little meaning if it is not applied to all things that encompass it's meaning.

There is no way to test evolution...this seemed to be a prerequisite of pseudoscience. People seem to prefer to encircle ID into pseudo science but irreducibility of design can be experimented.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

yes, it seems this term that has gone mainstream seems to have very little meaning if it is not applied to all things that encompass it's meaning.

There is no way to test evolution...this seemed to be a prerequisite of pseudoscience. People seem to prefer to encircle ID into pseudo science but irreducibility of design can be experimented.

what do you mean troll? have you ever opened a biology text book? No way to test evolution? How come scientists do nothing else than test evolution.

Go spread your bullshit somewhere else.

Your post has been reported.

 

[NDS]

Macroevolution isn't empirically testable and falsifiable.

Heliocentricism wasn't empirically testable until the technology required to empirically test it was developed (telescope, space shuttle, and camera).

The Macroevolution idea is still very young, relatively speaking. In time, new technology will develop in which we will be able to empirically test macroevolution in the lab and prove it beyond a doubt (this is actually already starting to happen).

And just like Geocentricism and the Flat-Earth Theory were proven wrong beyond a doubt, so will the Young Earth Creation Theory.

For those who have to proper education, the Young Earth Theory has already been proven wrong beyond a doubt.

 

[w1z4rd]

Young earth theory? Its not a theory. Its a misuse of the word theory.

 

[spidergoat]

yes, it seems this term that has gone mainstream seems to have very little meaning if it is not applied to all things that encompass it's meaning.

There is no way to test evolution...this seemed to be a prerequisite of pseudoscience. People seem to prefer to encircle ID into pseudo science but irreducibility of design can be experimented.

Evolution and abiogenesis are both testable. Natural selection is often tested. Speciation has been tested. Abiogenesis has been the inspiration for some experiments (see post #10).

In any case, lack of testing is not the same as being non-testable.

 

[w1z4rd]

Came across this interesting info on abiogen:

Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.

Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.

In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. There was careful filtering in place to preserve the results from destruction.

Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.

 

[Saquist]

Evolution and abiogenesis are both testable.

No experiment has ever shown evolution. That is why it remains a theory.

Natural selection is often tested

but does it lead to evolution? You didn't say it does. We observe natural selection all the time through animals. Yet we haven't seen the change in creature that evolution implies at it's largest degree.

Speciation has been tested.

No doubt.

Abiogenesis has been the inspiration for some experiments (see post #10).

I'm sure it's inspired much but testable implies that it's passed those test...They have not.