nPeace
Veteran Member
Dishonest?
Where does life come from? Despite years of research, scientists still rack their brains over this most existential question. If the universe did begin with a rapid expansion, per the Big Bang theory, then life as we know it sprung from nonliving matter. How this process, known as abiogenesis, could have occurred is a source of much scientific debate.
Spontaneous generation
The first experimental evidence against spontaneous generation came in 1668 when Francesco Redi showed that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. It was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be biogenesis: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (omne vivum ex ovo, Latin for "every living thing from an egg").
In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani demonstrated that microbes were present in the air, and could be killed by boiling. In 1861, Louis Pasteur performed a series of experiments that demonstrated that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media, but could only appear by invasion from without.
The belief that self-ordering by spontaneous generation was impossible begged for an alternative. By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. John Desmond Bernal, a pioneer in X-ray crystallography, suggested that earlier theories such as spontaneous generation were based upon an explanation that life was continuously created as a result of chance events.
..........
Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin
Louis Pasteur remarked, about a finding of his in 1864 which he considered definitive, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
..........
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on 1 February 1871, Darwin discussed the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." He had written to Hooker in 1863 stating that, "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." In On the Origin of Species, he had referred to life having been "created", by which he "really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process", but had soon regretted using the Old Testament term "creation".
"Primordial soup" hypothesis
Oparin proposed that the "spontaneous generation of life" that had been attacked by Louis Pasteur did in fact occur once, but was now impossible because the conditions found on the early Earth had changed, and preexisting organisms would immediately consume any spontaneously generated organism. Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygenless atmosphere through the action of sunlight.
..........
One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
Current models
There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. Scientists have proposed several plausible hypotheses, which share some common elements. While differing in the details, these hypotheses are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life. According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order".
So binding chemicals to chemicals, to form a bunch of chemicals equals life? Who or what brought the chemicals together?
Isn't that like mixing sand, water, and cement in a box, and coming back later, and proclaiming, "Look! A house." It formed by itself?
Who mixed the properties?
Perhaps we should stop the "flies" from getting into the jar.
Where would those chemicals be without the scientists - the flies?
Current approaches in evolution: from molecules to cells and organisms.
Though the model systems are diverse, the issues addressed are fundamental: the origin of evolutionary novelties, and the forces that drive them to fixation.
Many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity. It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing - George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46
It seems you don't like to hear the truth, so you resort to calling people dishonest, but I think you are either looking in the wrong direction, or... wait! I should have asked, "You are not in your room looking at the mirror as you type, are you?
I certainty hope not, although I don't think you would be being cruel to yourself.
Can Life Arise from Non Life?
Like non living machines, living organisms must be engineered. That means planned, organized, coordinated, commanded and controlled. Living organisms are the most complicated objects in the universe so the requirement is mega-engineering, not the sub-idiot, headless, phantom, superstitious, engineering in the hallucinations of evolutionists.
Please, think about it.
