Abiogenesis

[WalterTrull]

My favorite offer of evidence for abiogenesis:

The theory of abiogenesis was proposed by Thomas Henry Huxley. The theory of abiogenesis states that the evolution of living forms from non-living matter is spontaneous. Example: Meat left open generates flies and maggots. This shows spontaneous generation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This is not spontaneous generation or evidence of abiogenesis. The only way meat will "generate" maggots is if flies had, at some point, come into contact with it and laid eggs. Those eggs hatch into maggots, and those maggots grow into flies.

 

[ChristineM]

Meat left uncovered will attract flys that will lay eggs on the meat which will hatch to maggots before becoming flys.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry, I was copying off of @ChristineM.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, I was copying off of @ChristineM.

Because you posted by a whole minute before me proves otherwise.

More like i was copying off you which i deny

 

[SalixIncendium]

Because you posted by a whole minute before me proves otherwise.

More like i was copying off you which i deny

*whispers to Christine* We'll just tell them we posted at the same time. They'll never know.

 

[ChristineM]

*whispers to Christine* We'll just tell them we posted at the same time. They'll never know.

Whispers
Magic happens all the time the trick is conning people to believe it ;-)

 

[WalterTrull]

This is not spontaneous generation or evidence of abiogenesis. The only way meat will "generate" maggots is if flies had, at some point, come into contact with it and laid eggs. Those eggs hatch into maggots, and those maggots grow into flies.

Yeah?? Man you sure learn a lot here.

 

[Starise]

Don't ya love theories.

 

[ChristineM]

Don't ya love theories.

Depends on how the theory is formed.
Scientific theory has had to go through the rigours of peer review and has much evidence (usually in several forms) to make the step from hypothesis to theory.
Another type of theory as often used by anti science types in order to discredit a scientific theory is a misunderstood misrepresented guess.

 

[Colt]

Mind creating mind makes more sense to me.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah?? Man you sure learn a lot here.

Yeah, they tested this by putting meat in a sealed container that flies couldn't get into, and guess what? No maggots.

Look up germ theory too. Infections were thought to be some inevitable effect of injuries, but the suspicion that it was caused by microorganisms was laughed off. That was until the microscope was invented and they could see the bacteria, and how that affected injuries, and caused infection.

 

[F1fan]

Mind creating mind makes more sense to me.

Due to religious assumptions and bias. That's why science and reason doesn't back you up.

 

[WalterTrull]

This has become an interesting thread for reasons other than intended.
Perhaps I should explain:
The OP was, I thought, a cute, if not too subtle, put down of the theory of abiogenesis. The quote is a favorite of mine because it seems so dumb. Which is of course my take on abiogenesis.

 

[PureX]

So far we really don't know how life came into being. In fact, we really don't know the origins of anything. We know a little about how aspects of physical existence interact, but so far this tells us nothing about the origin of the forces driving those interactions. We are still livng in a very big mystery.

 

[Jimmy]

First off I don’t even believe that time existed but if I had, I’m unconvinced that life could’ve sprang from non life

 

[SalixIncendium]

First off I don’t even believe that time existed but if I had, I’m unconvinced that life could’ve sprang from inorganic matter.

Yep. It's much more plausible that nothing existed before 1980.

 

[McBell]

First off I don’t even believe that time existed but if I had, I’m unconvinced that life could’ve sprang from inorganic matter.

Are you saying that life can not come from nonlife?

 

[MikeF]

This has become an interesting thread for reasons other than intended.
Perhaps I should explain:
The OP was, I thought, a cute, if not too subtle, put down of the theory of abiogenesis. The quote is a favorite of mine because it seems so dumb. Which is of course my take on abiogenesis.

Calling abiogenesis a dumb idea would be a mistake in my opinion. I would suggest it is the best working hypothesis [edit: theory] possible given our current understanding of the physical laws of the Cosmos. To be skeptical and not convinced is perfectly fine if your fallback position is that we simply do not have sufficient information to make a strong theory at this time. If you have some other definitive conclusion as to how life on earth began, I would be quite skeptical but certainly open to reviewing any evidence that would support your alternative conclusion.

 

[Heyo]

This has become an interesting thread for reasons other than intended.
Perhaps I should explain:
The OP was, I thought, a cute, if not too subtle, put down of the theory of abiogenesis. The quote is a favorite of mine because it seems so dumb. Which is of course my take on abiogenesis.

It seems dumb to you because you are ... uninformed. Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis that was questioned even a hundred years before Huxley and finally laid to rest about the same time the abiogenesis hypothesis was formulated.
Confusing the two of course leads to wrong conclusions.
By the way, abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, not a theory. It is well supported in some of the steps and there is active research on other steps but we don't have an overarching explanation for the whole process.