Spontaneous Generation

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay in another thread Nick and RandMan insinuated that Evolutionists belived in spontaneous generation.

Now I ask them to show where in any scientific theory than spontaneous generation is used.

 

[randman]

"Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once - when certain chemicals came together to form the first simple living organisms more than three billion years ago."

Jerry A. Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, taken from the 1994 edition of the WorldBook Encyclopedia under the section "Spontaeous generation."

 

[LewisWildermuth]

That is not a theory but an artical in a book writen for the non-scientist.

I asked for a theory.

BTW... Get a better encyclopedia, like Britanica, World Book is just horrid.

 

[randman]

You don't get it, do you? Spontaneous generation is the set in which the various abiogenesis theories, subsets, fall into. It encompasses all of them since it is by definition the theory that life can come from matter, and regardless of WorldBook, Coyne is not exactly a hack writer. University of Chicago is one of the most respected universities in the world.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
You don't get it, do you? Spontaneous generation is the set in which the various abiogenesis theories, subsets, fall into. It encompasses all of them since it is by definition the theory that life can come from matter,

So all chemical reactions are spontaneous generation to you?

and regardless of WorldBook, Coyne is not exactly a hack writer. University of Chicago is one of the most respected universities in the world.

I never called Coyne a hack, this was just writen to non-scientists, at about an eigth grade or lower reading level. My opinion of World Book stems from finding them useless when I was writing papers in school, Britanica always had better info when I had to look something up.

 

[randman]

Maybe this will help your troubled mind. Coyne remarks "...spontaneous generation, also known as abiogenesis."

Got it?

ALL THEORIES OF ABIOGENESIS ARE THEORIES OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION AND ABIOGENESIS ARE THE SAME THING.

 

[randman]

"So all chemical reactions are spontaneous generation to you?"

Nice attempt at deception there. When losing an argument, claim your opponent is stating something completely off the wall and not even related to the topic like he beleives all chemical reactions are spontaneous generation, or he has a theory of life comign from nothing, or any number of things to distract others from the fact you lost the argument.

Apologize and move on Lewis. You make yourself look like an idiot here.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

RandMan, have you ever even bothered reading up on Abiogenesis theory? Besides the creationist materials? Have you ever even cracked the cover of a college level advanced biology textbook?

Abiogenesis is caused by a multitude of chemical reactions. Today in the lab we can create organic material out of the base inorganic components via chemical reactions. No we have not yet made anything as complex as a cell but only 50 years ago something as advanced as your computer was nothing but speculative fiction. We may figure out the corect combination of procceses in time, we may not. But from the evidence it looks more like we may than not.

 

[randman]

Then, why not just be proud of what you believe? You beleive spontaneous generation happened.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

Today in the lab we can create organic material out of the base inorganic components via chemical reactions.

Wow! You've proven that intelligent beings can create organic materials! Keep up the great work! You may eventually prove that a being as intelligent and as powerful as God could create life.

(By the way, I'd love to know what it is you define as an organic material.)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


Wow! You've proven that intelligent beings can create organic materials! Keep up the great work! You may eventually prove that a being as intelligent and as powerful as God could create life.

No, that chemical reactions can, both in and out of a lab. What part of chemical reactions do you have a problem with?

(By the way, I'd love to know what it is you define as an organic material.)

How about amino acids...

http://www.seti.org/general/press_release/amino_acids_form_in_space_03_26_02.html

Wow, even in space like conditions.

Large protien masses

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_340000/340345.stm

Nucleic acids like TNA

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/engl...2001/san_francisco/newsid_1181000/1181710.stm

You should read the TNA artical in full.

We are even getting close to making a virus...

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/engl...2001/san_francisco/newsid_1181000/1181710.stm


Are those good enough?

 

[randman]

So do you, or do you not, believe spontaneous generation occurred at least once, Lewis?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
So do you, or do you not, believe spontaneous generation occurred at least once, Lewis?

I belive that there is enough evidence that shows it is possible for life to have arisen from chemical reactions.

 

[seebs]

"Spontaneous Generation" is the theory that life *generally* simply pops into being. Such as, for instance, the claim that meat naturally spawns maggots if left for a while.

I wouldn't call abiogenesis "spontaneous generation".

 

[RufusAtticus]

Seebs,

I couldn't put it better myself.

What Coyne is talking about bears little similarity to the "spontanous generation" hyothesis of the 19th century.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

No, that chemical reactions can, both in and out of a lab. What part of chemical reactions do you have a problem with?

I have no problem with it.

What part of "created by man in a lab" do you have a problem with?

Man can create automobiles, too. That doesn't demonstrate that automobiles could evolve naturally.

Before you attempt to blow smoke defending the difference between the two, read the articles yourself and you'll see that if they choose to create a virus from scratch (they're considering borrowing DNA, which would not be from scratch), then if they succeed it will be because they followed a known blueprint (and it remains to be seen if they CAN succeed).

What they are NOT doing is "cooking it" from primordial soup and simulated natural events and envrionment.

So if anyone has any success at creating a virus or bacteria in the lab from scratch (and that still remains to be seen) then all it will prove is that an intelligent being can create a virus or a bacteria in a lab.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
I wouldn't call abiogenesis "spontaneous generation".

Of course you wouldn't. That would draw attention to how ridiculous abiogenesis is. That's why you call it "abiogenesis."

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by npetreley


Of course you wouldn't. That would draw attention to how ridiculous abiogenesis is. That's why you call it "abiogenesis."

Abiogenesis != spontaneous generation. Science today does not equate the one with the other. And it hasn't done so, for over a century and a half.

For all your whiny blustering, neither you nor randman has been able to prove otherwise.

The fact that no scientist today equates abiogenesis with spontaneous generation is evidence of education, and recognition of how far science has come in two centuries. (Two centuries ago is how far back you have to look, to find any substantial number of people who equate the two ideas).

The fact that *you* and *randman* equate the two is evidence of your own personal motivations; i.e., the deliberate decision to manufacture large quantities of straw men.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


Of course you wouldn't. That would draw attention to how ridiculous abiogenesis is. That's why you call it "abiogenesis."

Ahh yes. Just another episode of a creationist attacking the name and not the concept it refers to. It didn't work when you tried it against macroevolution. It's not going to work here either.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sauron

Abiogenesis != spontaneous generation. Science today does not equate the one with the other. And it hasn't done so, for over a century and a half.

Funny how "science" refuses to consider supernatural causes, yet "science" somehow supernaturally has this ability to equate things or not equate things.

The reason "science" (evolutionists) does not equate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation is because to do so would be to expose just how ridiculous it is to think abiogenesis happened. Which is exactly what I said.

"Spontaneous generation" is life from lifeless matter. "Abiogenesis" is life that spontaneously emerges from lifeless matter.

The fact that people who believed in spontaneous generation thought sugar could turn into worms only highlights how ridiculous the concept is. It doesn't give abiogenesis any more credibility to say that a bunch of chemicals turned into a living cell. It's still life that spontaneously emerges from lifeless matter.