Spontaneous Generation

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I imagine he was confused about who you were.

Actually, Ed, I was just reminded: there are actually two indivdiuals who he may have thought his remarks were addressed to. Either would make sense, although the one I originally mentioned is by far the worse offender of the two.

 

[ArtistEd]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


I shouldn't attempt to speak for him, but he probably thought yours was posted by another individual... if so, it would explain the tone of his reply. The individual in question is fairly notorious for making absurd claims, and then disappearing when the inevitable "discussion" period comes. It does get aggravating, and I've been known to lose my temper more than once with this particular individual. It isn't merely the vacuous posts and the empty rhetoric - it is the arrogance with which he pronounces his stunning "indictments" of science, his "unsolvable problems", and his "unanswerable questions," that provoke such a vitriolic reaction. Morat, as far as I can tell, is a fairly easy-going person and wouldn't just lash out at anybody that way. I imagine he was confused about who you were.

I can agree with that. In fact, I'll edit my post.

Ed

 

[Jerry Smith]

 

[pie]

There Evolution does not say anything about spontaneous generation, the Big-Bang theory or anything else about how we got to be. It states that we change in time. It's strange how Creationists like to mix evolutionist and their atheistic theories, but they have none. The people that talk so much about creationism know very little about it.

 

[randman]

Most evolutionists believe that the first life-form we all evolved from, according to them, spontaneously generated a few billion years ago.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Most evolutionists believe that the first life-form we all evolved from, according to them, spontaneously generated a few billion years ago.

The theory of evolution is not the sum of what most evolutionary biologists believe, but rather a theoretical framework to explain the facts observed in nature. Abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, are no more a part of evolution than "democratic ideals," something most "evolutionists" also believe in.

 

[pie]

Yes I know what many evolutionists believe. But it's like saying Americans are christian. You make it seem like that's a law, like you must be Christian to be American. I'm saying you don't have to believe in spontaneous generation to be an evolutionist.

 

[randman]

"I'm saying you don't have to believe in spontaneous generation to be an evolutionist."

That's true. You could be a theistic evolutionist, but In think it is worth noting that most would rather believe spontaneous generation to be possible and likely rather than accept the notion that God created life here, and that to me is relevant as to their perceived objectivity.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I hope you noticed my post too, randman

 

[randman]

"Abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, are no more a part of evolution than "democratic ideals," something most "evolutionists" also believe in."

I disagree since if you remove all the labels, abiogenesis a form of spontaneous generation is the beginning of the process according to most evolutionists. It is relevant, especially as a "Science, Creation & Evolution" topic.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You have still to answer what you belive spontaneous generation to be.

You seem to imply that your definition is something along the sane lines as the defunct "Theory of Spontaneous Generation". Now if that is your definition I suggest you find a biologist that still holds that theory to be true.

From the artical you sighted the writer implies that he is refering to chemical ractions as spontaneous generation.

The two ideas are totaly different in their base assumptions. By saying one is the same as the other you are blatently lying.

 

[randman]

I guess WorlBook and Coyne are blatantly lying too. On second thought, Lewis, youa re the one lying. You know full well that spontaneous generation refers to life stemming from non-life. To my knowledge, there was no "theory" as to how it occurred in the 18th century, just that it occurred.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Actualy what I remember of the "theory of spontaneous generation" was quite interesting.

I'll have to look it up again but this is what I remember of it...

inanimate matter gave of an ether like gas

that gas reacted with the matter to form animated life

ie a rotting piece of meat gave off ether that then caused the meat to form maggots spontaneously.

One of the key tests that voided this theory was to take some meat, put it in a sealed jar and presto no maggots.

But the people who accepted this theory argued that Air had to interact with the ether and another test had to be performed to allow air to interact. So the meat was placed in an open jar and covered with cheese cloth that allowed the air to get to the meat but not the flies which were the competing theories cause of maggots. they found that watching the jar the meat produced no maggots but flies did land on the cloth, lay eggs and maggots were born ontop of the cloth away from the meat.

This was only one of many experiments used to disprove the "Theory of Spontaneoud Generation" and was found in many grade school boilogy books when I was growing up.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay then, life from non-life = Spontaneous Generation

Now what is life?

Is an amino acid that self replicates life? DNA or RNA that do the same? What does a life form have to do to be life?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Okay then, life from non-life = Spontaneous Generation

Now what is life?

Is an amino acid that self replicates life? DNA or RNA that do the same? What does a life form have to do to be life?

You tell us. What do you consider to be life?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Sure Nick I'll go first, but I expect an answer out of you and randman too.

What is life? I don't know.

There is a lot of grey in any definition that I have come across. Are viruses life? they can only replicate when they enter another organism, but then again humans can only replicate by entering another human.

Is self-replication a good definition of life? If it is than only our cells are alive since we humans need another to replicate. Also many protiens and amino acids can self replicate, but are they life?

How about the ability to move? But then you have to throw out some bacteria that cant move and ofcourse the poor viruses too.

Self-sustanance? Well that rules out anything that is not photosynthetic or chemeosynthetic(like some of the deep sea life around the vents) No animal life is self sustaining.



The long and short is I do not know of a definition one can use across the board to determine "life".

Can you?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Sure Nick I'll go first, but I expect an answer out of you and randman too.

What is life? I don't know.

Seems like YOU are the one who just wants to duck the issue. But for the sake of argument (and is there any other motive here?), let's say that A is nonliving matter, C is a hamster and B is the point at which you arbitrarily determine is the most primitive form of life. So abiogenesis says that...

A -> B -> C

Therefore at some point between A and B, spontaneous generation took place.

The only difference between this theory and the ether theory is that the theory of abiogenesis/spontaneous generation now includes enough detail about amino acids and proteins that a layman might be fooled into thinking it could actually be possible. Or not.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You forgot your definition of life Nick...

I'm waiting...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


Seems like YOU are the one who just wants to duck the issue. But for the sake of argument (and is there any other motive here?), let's say that A is nonliving matter, C is a hamster and B is the point at which you arbitrarily determine is the most primitive form of life. So abiogenesis says that...

A -> B -> C]

Nope, you added the hamster. Abiogenises ends at B and that is where evolution picks up.

Therefore at some point between A and B, spontaneous generation took place.

If by "spontaneous generation" you mean a myriad of chemical reactions then yes. See it's not that hard.

The only difference between this theory and the ether theory is that the theory of abiogenesis/spontaneous generation now includes enough detail about amino acids and proteins that a layman might be fooled into thinking it could actually be possible. Or not.

No, the biggest difference is that Abiogenesis has yet to be falsified. It may be or it may not be, but for now it is the best scientific explanation out there.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, are no more a part of evolution than "democratic ideals," something most "evolutionists" also believe in."

I disagree since if you remove all the labels, abiogenesis a form of spontaneous generation is the beginning of the process according to most evolutionists. It is relevant, especially as a "Science, Creation & Evolution" topic.

It is only tangentially relevant. It is a research program for understanding the origin of life in naturalistic terms. Evolution is a theory explaining the diversity of life in naturalistic terms, so they do have similar traits, and many who accept evolution are confident in abiogenesis, but they are mutually independent. One does not require the other, and neither is a part of the other theory.