please share with us the “working hypothesis” of abiogenesis. (The formation of amino acids , is not a working hypothesis.)
A working hypothesis is any where -
- any multiple evidence can be discovered - positive evidence or negative evidence - OR,
- be able to perform different experiments - successful experiments or failed experiments.
Both points 1 & 2, demonstrate that the hypothesis can be tested (eg actual experiments being performed, or evidence like the Murchison Meteorite, etc), and the hypothesis is still testable and that the hypothesis is falsifiable.
Every evidence - positive & negative, and every experiments - failed ones & successful ones - provide objective information or raw data (in the case of Abiogenesis examples) about physical phenomena of inorganic matters in pre-biotic environment can convert into organic matters (or more precisely any of the biological macromolecules) through chemical reactions. Such information or data is vital testing of any hypothesis.
That different evidence are still being gathered or different experiments are still being performed, in the present as it did back with the earliest experiment by Stanley Miller & Harold Urey in 1952, are examples of a working hypothesis, Hockeycowboy.
Do you even understand the nature of falsifiable or the nature of evidence?
Even one failed experiments demonstrated the hypothesis is falsifiable. Because it (“it” as in data yielded in experiments) a experiment can be carried out in the first place, and it would tell us that the premises in the hypothesis are either incorrect or inaccurate, and that’s a good thing, because this test (this single experiment) would rule out the premises.
But “one” experiment is a failure, doesn’t mean you cannot perform different experiments.
Let’s say for hypothetical scenario, you have perform 20 completely different experiments, some have failed and some yield successes in experiments, then in this case you would know that certain chemicals don’t work, but others do.
That’s the sign that the hypothesis is falsifiable, because you can perform tests in the first place.
A concept is only unfalsifiable if there are “no experiments” whatsoever, or no evidence exist.
Intelligent Design for example, always advocate the “Designer” is the “cause”, but where are physical evidence of this Designer? Where are experiments that demonstrate the physical Designer exist?
What stupid ID creationists from Discovery Institute (eg Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, are senior members) and ID creationist authors (eg Dean Kenyon, Percival Davis), failed to comprehend that CAUSE also required EVIDENCE for its existence to be true. Without a single evidence of the cause (Designer), then the whole concept (Intelligent Design) collapses, which means Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable and untestable.
Behe even admitted that Intelligent Design have no “original experiments” and no data.
Unfalsifiable concepts, like Intelligent Design, cannot not provide or demonstrate that this Designer is real.
Abiogenesis is not proposing any supernatural beings, no magic and no miracles. All Abiogenesis is proposing is that the right inorganic chemicals can produce biological compounds, through chemical reactions.
You are forgetting that Miller and Urey have identified 11 amino acids in 1952, while using electricity as catalyst to start chemical reaction.
The whole experiment was then stored in some vials. Without heat and electricity, chemical reaction were still occurring in those vials, when another 10 different amino acids, hence a total of 21 amino acids.
You’ve dismissed the implications of the experimental results of experiments producing amino acids and other organic compounds (eg adenines in Oró’s 1961 experiment, using hydrogen cyanide, ammonia and water; adenine is one of 5 compounds in a nucleobase, which are components in nucleic acids).
There are over 500 different types of amino acids, but only 23 different amino acids can naturally produce (various types of) proteins. So amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.
Amino acids are just one piece of the biological compounds scientists are trying to figure out, in a much larger puzzle. You are forgetting that some other experiments are trying to unlock the formation of the components in nucleic acids and in carbohydrates.
Abiogenesis researches, even with hypothesis status, have done more solid works than the biblical creationism (eg YEC, OEC) or the Intelligent Design creationism.
