RNA didn't "change" to DNA. The RNA is still running the show. DNA is just offline tape storage, which we probably once got along fine without, when things were hotter, and efficient production of mRNA was not all the rage.
Since you don't like the math proofs, how would you falsify abiogenesis?
You have to divide this into two questions: How would I formally falsify abiogensis? By examining the entire state space of the universe as if it were a giant chess game I could read backwards in time and constructing of eden proof: ie, a proof that some point in evolution could not be reached from a starting point with no life in it. I think it is a safe guess that humans will never have enough resources to attempt this proof.
Less formally, you could refute abiogensis if you capture a wild example of life forming by some other means. Feel free.
Like I said, to refute a thing, you need positive evidence to the contrary. Pointing out that you don't yet know everything, as creationists and complexity honks do, is a pointless truism.
This should read:
constructing a garden of eden proof
Sorry.
You have to divide this into two questions: How would I formally falsify abiogensis? By examining the entire state space of the universe as if it were a giant chess game I could read backwards in time and constructing of eden proof: ie, a proof that some point in evolution could not be reached from a starting point with no life in it.
As Hoyle and Morowitz did.
I think it is a safe guess that humans will never have enough resources to attempt this proof.
So it can't be falsified. (This means it has fallen as a science,)