You have some pretty strange notions of how science works. Here's a quote from a typical history of the Periodic Table.
In all Mendeleev found that 17 elements had to be moved to new positions from those indicated strictly by atomic weight for their properties to correlate with other elements. These changes indicated that there were errors in the accepted atomic weights of some elements (atomic weights were calculated from combining weights, the weight of an element that combines with a given weight of a standard.) However, even after corrections were made by redetermining atomic weights, some elements still needed to be placed out of order of their atomic weights. From the gaps present in his table, Mendeleev predicted the existence and properties of unknown elements which he called eka-aluminum, eka-boron, and eka-silicon. The elements gallium, scandium and germanium were found later to fit his predictions quite well. In addition to the fact that Mendeleev's table was published before Meyers', his work was more extensive predicting new or missing elements. In all Mendeleev predicted the existence of 10 new elements, of which seven were eventually discovered -- the other three, atomic weights 45, 146 and 175 do not exist. He also was incorrect in suggesting that the element pairs of argon-potassium, cobalt-nickel and tellurium-iodine should be interchanged in position due to inaccurate atomic weights. Although these elements did need to be interchanged, it was because of a flaw in the reasoning that periodicity is a function of atomic weight.
from http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/perhist.htm. I guess your theory of clean-hands science is in keeping with the notion that you can call it science when you do abiogensis experiments inside your head.
"You have some pretty strange notions of how science works. Here's a quote from a typical history of the Periodic Table."
My comment was that periodic elements are not falsifiable, not the periodic table. The periodic table is a model which has been modified to comply with the periodic elements which have been found.
Do other elements exist which have not been observed? Since we understand the underlying principles better, we can probably predict that other heavier elements are not stable and will not naturally occur in most environments. But maybe there are some which do exist somewhere which have not even been modeled or created experimentally.
The outcome does not need to be falsifiable because it contains the actual data. So the data is not falsifiable.
You cannot falsify that carbon exists because it does. If it did not and was only a model, the only thing we could falsify is where carbon should be found or where it should be plentiful. If we did not find it, it would not mean that it does not exist.
How is that falsifiable?