Pasteur and spontaneous generation

[Mallon]

Have at 'im. I'm going to get some more popcorn...

 

[Deamiter]

So... in which work of Pasteur's do you think he disproved abiogenesis? In my admittedly limited study of his work, spontaneous generation never proposed to be the origin of all life, but the origin of maggots that came from rotting meat.

Showing that maggots don't spontaneously arise from rotting meat is far from showing that life COULD not have arisen naturally. But then again, I fully admit that I haven't read any of his works. So which of his works do you suggest mswilliamsll read to understand how abiogenesis has been disproven?

 

[shernren]

Let's turn on the lights, kids, show's over:

Pasteur's spontaneous generation involved the creation of life-forms from organic combinations of roughly the same composition as Earth's modern environment, which are macro-sized and taxonomically continuous with other life-forms.

This is nowhere near what abiogenesis requires, namely that from primordial conditions (which would nowhere resemble modern Earth's conditions in anything but the most fundamental ways), catalytic hypercycles and precursor macromolecules (such as protobionts, coacervates and RNA), which would be very much ancestral to today's life-forms and therefore quite unrecognizable.

Hence, the spontaneous generation which Pasteur disproved and abiogenesis are very different.

(I ran out of popcorn. Not having popcorn makes me edgy. Grrr.)

 

[Assyrian]

You can have some of mine. You don't mind llama hair do you?

 

[withreason]

Let's turn on the lights, kids, show's over:

Pasteur's spontaneous generation involved the creation of life-forms from organic combinations of roughly the same composition as Earth's modern environment, which are macro-sized and taxonomically continuous with other life-forms.

This is nowhere near what abiogenesis requires, namely that from primordial conditions (which would nowhere resemble modern Earth's conditions in anything but the most fundamental ways), catalytic hypercycles and precursor macromolecules (such as protobionts, coacervates and RNA), which would be very much ancestral to today's life-forms and therefore quite unrecognizable.

Hence, the spontaneous generation which Pasteur disproved and abiogenesis are very different.

(I ran out of popcorn. Not having popcorn makes me edgy. Grrr.)

Pasteur’s work set the precedence. The resulting work of Stanley Miller, was all in effort to prove spontaneous generation was possible under the “theorized” conditions of the earths atmosphere. You cant examine spontaneous generation without observing the base and history of Abiogenesis.

 

[Assyrian]

I think you could clearly see that I was previously engaged, the information available for your own interest is at your fingertips! what your post is refering to is ridicule...which seems to be the norm of rebutal in this forum.....I shall further explain what I meant in regard to the post that generated my comment of Pasture...
Darwinian evolution does not explain the first oginisms that arose by “chance” in the so called “primordial soup”. Spontaneous generation is the only explanation. Louis Pasteur; disproved the fallacy of “spontaneous generation” in 1859 the French academy of science sponsored an attempt to prove or disprove Spontaneous Generation. Pasteur filled a long necked flask with meat broth. He then heated the glass neck and bent it into an "S" shape. Air could reach the broth, but gravity acted to trap airborne microorganisms in the curve of the neck. He then boiled the broth. After a time, no microorganisms had formed in the broth. Thus, Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation, Abiogenesis.
Even though Spontaneous Generation was disproved as the Origin of Life in 1859. Ironically, it was this same year that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published. From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement. Yet…..this theory does not explain the first development of micro organisms that are needed for the evolutionary process to have a foundation for development.
And Behe’s work with IC, goes further to exemplify the need for evolutionary theory to produce viable reasoning to explain the origins of the first cell, not to mention the DNA hurdles ….
as for thr recent work in the 21 century you mentioned, I do believe there were two basic amino's that were produced from questionable "enviornmental relationships" in natural evlotionary conditions, the electrical enducement was based on "theory" and the amino's that were produced are toxic to development by mutation.....they were duds!!

You are getting this from Pasteur's original writings I presume?

 

[withreason]

You are getting this from Pasteur's original writings I presume?

Why would you presume..??
do I appear to know french??....does it matter ??
are trying to imply the information that is freely available is compromised..??

 

[Deamiter]

Why would you presume..??
do I appear to know french??....does it matter ??
are trying to imply the information that is freely available is compromised..??

Oh, so where DID you get this information? I know I've read exceprts by Pasteur (translated of course) but I've read even more commentary based on his work. It's all cited of course, so if I wanted to look into the original (as mswilliamsll is offering) I would easily be able to! Surely your source is similarly cited so you can verify that it is accurate?

Anyway, you keep saying that abiogenesis has been disproven -- but I'm curious as to how one might go about proving a negative (that something did NOT happen). Pasteur showed only that maggots do not come from dead meat. How does this "prove" that self-replicating molecules did not evolve into the first cells?

 

[withreason]

Oh, so where DID you get this information? I know I've read exceprts by Pasteur (translated of course) but I've read even more commentary based on his work. It's all cited of course, so if I wanted to look into the original (as mswilliamsll is offering) I would easily be able to! Surely your source is similarly cited so you can verify that it is accurate?

Anyway, you keep saying that abiogenesis has been disproven -- but I'm curious as to how one might go about proving a negative (that something did NOT happen). Pasteur showed only that maggots do not come from dead meat. How does this "prove" that self-replicating molecules did not evolve into the first cells?

I stated...that Spontaneous Generation was Disproved!.the best effort to prove abiogenesis, I believe could be summed up with the work of Stanley Miller, although..I do not know of any other laboratory experiments beyond that...and if abiogenesis is based on the "so called" proof of the miller experiment. then that is laughable LOL to say the least!!

are you saying you want me to post links to all the sites where I have found this information...?? if so...you are asking alot .....you can look yourself!

 

[Deamiter]

Nobody has ever claimed that abiogenesis is "proven" or even strongly evidenced. But you repeated claimed that it has been disproven which is just as wrong.

Further, while Miller's experiments are certainly related to abiogenesis, Pasteur's are not at all related to the current concept of abiogenesis. Pasteur was disproving a very specific hypothesis -- that the reason maggots appear on meat is because the "spontaniously generate." Pasteur showed that this is not the case (and we now know that flies cause maggots on meat).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think you could clearly see that I was previously engaged, the information available for your own interest is at your fingertips!

if the literature that Pasteur wrote on spontaneous generation was at my fingertips then i would have it.

everything i found online was short paragraphs or second hand quotations of Pasteur. The two English books at school are letters and on fermentation of beer. AFAIK, everyone talks about him but the primary literature is not obviously available, at least not in English. That is why i jumped at the chance to discuss the issues with someone who could help navigate the literature. He appears to be someone that everyone knows about but no one actually reads in the primary literature.

i have only a smattering of studying in abiogenesis and thought that Pasteur would be a good place to start. the thread has been here for a week and as of yet no one has found original, but in English, literature by Pasteur online to refer us to. I've seen no more than a few paragraphs in other essays and suspect that he is just plain hard to get in translation, or maybe he is just hard read, or something else. He is not very accessible, hence the reason for asking for help.

you made a perfectly good statement

posted by withreason:
To accept the primordial soup, you need to accept all the above as well, have you studied any of the work of Louis Pasteur? I think it is worth the investment of time!

i agreed with you and asked for help. i started the thread, PM'ed you, spent time googling unsuccessfully, searched the library and found there what doesn't appear to do me any good just now. I'm at a loss to show any more seriousness and desire to invest the time in studying Pasteur. I simply don't know where to get the literature and what to start reading when i do. I found biographies and secondary literature at google.books but i continue to come up empty handed in both online and university library searching for primary writing by Pasteur in English on spontaneous generation. it is as simple as that. i am interested but finding it difficult to proceed without a little bit of help.

are you saying you want me to post links to all the sites where I have found this information...?? if so...you are asking alot .....you can look yourself!
i have posted thousands of links in these forums to help people learn and study. that is almost part of the bargain here, trade a little bit of time for a little bit of information. i do not have the links to the primary literature, i would simply appreciate the help and ask you to just point out a few of your references. the net is a big place, google is a very sensitive tool and people really do find very different things.

 

[withreason]

Nobody has ever claimed that abiogenesis is "proven" or even strongly evidenced. But you repeated claimed that it has been disproven which is just as wrong.

Further, while Miller's experiments are certainly related to abiogenesis, Pasteur's are not at all related to the current concept of abiogenesis. Pasteur was disproving a very specific hypothesis -- that the reason maggots appear on meat is because the "spontaniously generate." Pasteur showed that this is not the case (and we now know that flies cause maggots on meat).

this is what I mean....the defining of your meaning on..Spontaneous generation...delegating the importance of Pasteure's work to a meaning of something less than what it proved, and remained the accepted conclusion of spontaneous generation until...I think 1958 ?? i could be wrong. The Theory of Evolution is the only thing that seems to be evolving.... abiogenesis...is just a new definition to continue the same argument that Pasteur laid to rest in the age of "ignorance" of DNA.
all of these arguments are the reasons why there are an increasing number of prominent scientists, and respected Doctors in their fields are openly dissenting from Darwinian Evolution..I think the number is in excess of 660. not to mention the Medical side also...
This theory is not a reasonable answer to the questions that are now facing science..

 

[withreason]

I think you could clearly see that I was previously engaged, the information available for your own interest is at your fingertips!

if the literature that Pasteur wrote on spontaneous generation was at my fingertips then i would have it.

everything i found online was short paragraphs or second hand quotations of Pasteur. The two English books at school are letters and on fermentation of beer. AFAIK, everyone talks about him but the primary literature is not obviously available, at least not in English. That is why i jumped at the chance to discuss the issues with someone who could help navigate the literature. He appears to be someone that everyone knows about but no one actually reads in the primary literature.

i have only a smattering of studying in abiogenesis and thought that Pasteur would be a good place to start. the thread has been here for a week and as of yet no one has found original, but in English, literature by Pasteur online to refer us to. I've seen no more than a few paragraphs in other essays and suspect that he is just plain hard to get in translation, or maybe he is just hard read, or something else. He is not very accessible, hence the reason for asking for help.

you made a perfectly good statement
i agreed with you and asked for help. i started the thread, PM'ed you, spent time googling unsuccessfully, searched the library and found there what doesn't appear to do me any good just now. I'm at a loss to show any more seriousness and desire to invest the time in studying Pasteur. I simply don't know where to get the literature and what to start reading when i do. I found biographies and secondary literature at google.books but i continue to come up empty handed in both online and university library searching for primary writing by Pasteur in English on spontaneous generation. it is as simple as that. i am interested but finding it difficult to proceed without a little bit of help.

are you saying you want me to post links to all the sites where I have found this information...?? if so...you are asking alot .....you can look yourself!
i have posted thousands of links in these forums to help people learn and study. that is almost part of the bargain here, trade a little bit of time for a little bit of information. i do not have the links to the primary literature, i would simply appreciate the help and ask you to just point out a few of your references. the net is a big place, google is a very sensitive tool and people really do find very different things.

all of the research that I dug into was from googling, I do not have the time to try to find all the sources, most all the data on pasteur are summarizations of his experiment, mostly defining the outcome, the results of the accepted conclusion of the age. I do not believe one can gain understanding of what it takes to accept evolution without starting from the root. his laboratory experiment would be considered crude by todays standard, yet his conclusion satisfied the academic society of his day. and was accepted until the defining of his experiment was questioned by the need to produce a viable answer to the origin of life.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html scroll down to.. Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/spontaneous-generation.htm

heres just 2...I think I went through about 20 or 30....

 

[rmwilliamsll]

all of the research that I dug into was from googling, I do not have the time to try to find all the sources, most all the data on pasteur are summarizations of his experiment, mostly defining the outcome, the results of the accepted conclusion of the age. I do not believe one can gain understanding of what it takes to accept evolution without starting from the root. his laboratory experiment would be considered crude by todays standard, yet his conclusion satisfied the academic society of his day. and was accepted until the defining of his experiment was questioned by the need to produce a viable answer to the origin of life.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html scroll down to.. Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/spontaneous-generation.htm

heres just 2...I think I went through about 20 or 30....

this is exactly what i found.

a secondary literature that quotes biographies but not Pasteur directly. of the many dozens of pages i've read this week about Pasteur, i found 1 with a page from his writing on spontaneous generation, but it was not referenced or cited as to source.

look at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/refs.html
there isn't a single reference directly to Pasteur himself.
like everything else it is secondary, not primary.

now you can see exactly why i started the thread. Pasteur is not an easy person to study if you want to get behind the talk about him, and see what he himself wrote.

Everyone talks about his significance but i have yet to find his books themselves anywhere, which is odd given that they are out of copyright and ought to be on places like google.books under:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q...taneous+generation&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0

but old biographies predominate, i'm hundreds of links into the search pages and still no English Pasteur himself. just people talking about him.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the wiki on Pasteur has a couple of links to english translations:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/articles/pasteur.htm

these are the same 3 papers listed as chapters in:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=O...oc&dq=Pasteur&sig=cnzUg6SgMOXLgtryeZpc6OG0ywQ

now if i read French, i'd have no problem:

• The complete work of Pasteur (in french)

The complete work of Pasteur can be free downloaded on site of BNF (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica) (click on « Télécharger » (right, at the top))
(French) PDF Pasteur Œuvre tome 1 – Dissymétrie moléculaire
(French) PDF Pasteur Œuvre tome 2 – Fermentations et générations dites spontanées
(French) PDF Pasteur Œuvre tome 3 – Etude sur le vinaigre et le vin
(French) PDF Pasteur Œuvre tome 4– Etude sur la maladie des vers à soie
(French) PDF Pasteur Œuvre tome 5 – Etude sur la bière
(French) PDF Pasteur Œuvre tome 6 - Maladie virulentes. Virus. Vaccins, Prophylaxie de la rage
(French) PDF Pasteur – Correspondances (1840-1895)

Different articles published by Pasteur can be free downloaded on site of BNF (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Gallica) in the differents books of « Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences » Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences (free downloaded).

again from the wiki on Pasteur.

 

[withreason]

the wiki on Pasteur has a couple of links to english translations:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/articles/pasteur.htm

these are the same 3 papers listed as chapters in:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=O...oc&dq=Pasteur&sig=cnzUg6SgMOXLgtryeZpc6OG0ywQ

now if i read French, i'd have no problem:

again from the wiki on Pasteur.

Yes....that does pose a slight problem...merce'

although...all of the arguments are subsequent to his work, and Darwins Evolution of Species had not been published at the time of pasteur's work, although..it would be of interest to know pasteur's personal thoughts ...evolution, I believe ...had been purposed prior to darwin...But, I do believe Pasteur was in no way attempting to disprove any related theory...merely evidence of the ..appearance of maggots from dead flesh.

 

[Deamiter]

Unfortunately nothing's up on Project Gutenberg (the site posting all sorts of uncopyrighted stuff.

withreason -- Pasteur's work was absolutely revolutionary at the time! But you seem to reject my claim that he showed 'only' that organisms do not arise naturally from meat.

Do you think he showed something more that disproves current hypotheses on abiogenesis? Something relating to self-replicating molecules perhaps?

 

[withreason]

Unfortunately nothing's up on Project Gutenberg (the site posting all sorts of uncopyrighted stuff.

withreason -- Pasteur's work was absolutely revolutionary at the time! But you seem to reject my claim that he showed 'only' that organisms do not arise naturally from meat.

Do you think he showed something more that disproves current hypotheses on abiogenesis? Something relating to self-replicating molecules perhaps?

of course not! the problem is not in self-replicating molecules. it is in self generating molecules. and there is still no current hypothesis that I am aware of ..other than the current abiogenesis theory, of which millers experiment tried to prove, yet ..only produced a toxic soup that contained two non-active amino's.
the idea of RNA being the precursor to DNA does not go over iether....being RNA basic fuction is to imprint the specified encoded structuring within the DNA helix. that hypothesis dont work iether...creation works !!

 

[Deamiter]

of course not! the problem is not in self-replicating molecules. it is in self generating molecules. and there is still no current hypothesis that I am aware of ..other than the current abiogenesis theory, of which millers experiment tried to prove, yet ..only produced a toxic soup that contained two non-active amino's.
the idea of RNA being the precursor to DNA does not go over iether....being RNA basic fuction is to imprint the specified encoded structuring within the DNA helix. that hypothesis dont work iether...creation works !!

Quite right, no mechanism has ever been shown that can produce DNA from self-replicating molecules. Forgive my persistance on Pasteur, but when you said the following, you claimed that he disproved the "only explanation" of spontaneous generation. The statement is quite in error as spontaneous never claimed to explain the origin of all life and certainly not the origin of DNA (as DNA was unknown at the time). "Abiogenesis" is one current hypothesis, not the spontaneous generation which Pasteur disproved.

Darwinian evolution does not explain the first oginisms that arose by “chance” in the so called “primordial soup”. Spontaneous generation is the only explanation. Louis Pasteur; disproved the fallacy of “spontaneous generation” in 1859 the French academy of science sponsored an attempt to prove or disprove Spontaneous Generation.

That said, whether God poofed the first organism(s) into existance, aliens seeded the planet or life arose via abiogenesis evolution remains with a huge amount of evidence (which would be off topic here). It's nice to know we're on the same page about Pasteur, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis though.

 

[withreason]

Unfortunately nothing's up on Project Gutenberg (the site posting all sorts of uncopyrighted stuff.

withreason -- Pasteur's work was absolutely revolutionary at the time! But you seem to reject my claim that he showed 'only' that organisms do not arise naturally from meat.

Do you think he showed something more that disproves current hypotheses on abiogenesis? Something relating to self-replicating molecules perhaps?

I dont think I answered all of your question...Pasteur apparently used a biological protein source for his experiment, and the reasoning being ....if no evidence for spontaneous generation could be developed from a provided biological source, then ....certainly, there could be no development from rocks!