- Direct observation of the phenomenon
- A testable hypothesis
- Controlled, repeatable experiments
- Clear falsification criteria
- Genuine predictive power
Abiogenesis and macroevolution at the level claimed have never cleared all five. If your favorite theory cannot, it remains a historical inference or a research program, not a settled fact. This stream documents the gap.
Miller-Urey at 70. The 1953 experiment produced some amino acids. No nucleotides, no sugars, no polypeptides, no membranes. Racemic mixture, tar-coated flask, trapped products to prevent destruction. Modern reanalysis (2021) confirms the exact limited yield and the absence of a path to coded information—still the strongest prebiotic simulation on record.
Abiogenesis: Gap between simple chemistry and full life
We observe the formation of simple molecules and short chains.
We do not observe the full jump to an integrated system with a self-copying information carrier, a boundary (membrane), metabolism, error correction, and stable reproduction. This gap is filled with scenarios, not experiments.
Historical unrepeatability: The specific event that started life on Earth is gone. No one can rerun early Earth conditions in exact detail. So the central claim, “This is how it actually happened,” rests on inference from models, not direct observation.
Tuning assumptions: Model builders can choose atmospheric composition, UV levels, minerals, cycles, etc. If a model fails, parameters can be changed until some pathway appears “plausible.” That risks fitting the story to the desired outcome rather than testing a fixed prediction.
Lack of full experimental chain: There is no single experiment that starts from strictly inorganic materials and ends with a cell that can grow, divide, and evolve. Without that, the claim that abiogenesis “has a demonstrated pathway” is not supported by full-chain data.
Inference vs. observation: Many steps are “this kind of reaction could have occurred here” or “this molecule could have played this role.” These are possibility statements, not observations. Treating possibility as historical fact is logically weak.
Abiogenesis and evolution sound like one story, but they break apart when you run a red-hat and black-hat audit using the scientific model. Abiogenesis has no observed path from non-life to a self-replicating cell; only pieces like simple molecules and short chains are followed, so the full jump rests on inference. Evolution shows fundamental micro changes in populations, but the big claims about new body plans and common ancestry rely on patterns and long-term extrapolation, not direct observation. Both fields mix real data with untestable history, so the red hat exposes gaps while the black hat defends only the parts we can measure. When people call the entire story “proven,” they are blending experiments with speculation, and a scientific audit keeps those layers separate.
Thanks for reading. Please, like, subscribe, and leave a comment to support this channel.