Spontaneous Generation

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

Origin of Life - Louis Pasteur

Spontaneous Generation was thought to be the Origin of Life until the late
1850's. It wasn't until Frenchman Louis Pasteur that this fallacy was
finally disproved. In 1859, the French Academy of Science sponsored a
Science Fair, the goal being to prove or disprove Spontaneous Generation.
Young Pasteur's award winning experiment was a clever variation of earlier
experiments performed by John Needham (1713-1781) and Lazzaro Spallanzani
(1729-1799). 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. When the flask was tipped so that the broth reached the
microorganisms trapped in the neck, the broth quickly became cloudy with
microscopic life. Thus, Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation.
Furthermore, Pasteur proved that some microorganisms are airborne.

Well, so far, so good. Where'd you steal this, by the way? It's
considered bad form to reproduce the writings of others without giving
proper attribution.

Quoted message said:

Origin of Life - Origin of Species and Modern Day Science Class
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, which
is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the
origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical
Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3)
Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4)
Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); (5) Macro
Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and (6) Micro Evolution (the
variation within the kinds).

As soon as you see the word "kinds" you know you're dealing with some
sort of Creationists. They're the only ones who use the word that
way.

Quoted message said:

Only the sixth phase has been observed and documented. The first five
are merely assumed.

No, they are not "merely assumed". That would mean we had no
evidence.

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, the fourth assumption is the old doctrine of
Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic
matter (a rock).

No, it's not. The notion of Spontaneous Generation that was shot down
by Pasteur is notably different from the notions of abiogenesis in
biology.

Quoted message said:

The sadly comical result is that

....people like Spammin' Dave post nonsense on Usenet.

Quoted message said:

some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco
Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous
Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that
Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life

As mentioned before, they are quite different concepts.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

Origin of Life - Louis Pasteur

Spontaneous Generation was thought to be the Origin of Life until the

late

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1850's. It wasn't until Frenchman Louis Pasteur that this fallacy was
finally disproved. In 1859, the French Academy of Science sponsored a
Science Fair, the goal being to prove or disprove Spontaneous Generation.
Young Pasteur's award winning experiment was a clever variation of

earlier

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

experiments performed by John Needham (1713-1781) and Lazzaro Spallanzani
(1729-1799). 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

neck. He then boiled the broth. After a time, no microorganisms had

formed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the broth. When the flask was tipped so that the broth reached the
microorganisms trapped in the neck, the broth quickly became cloudy with
microscopic life. Thus, Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation.
Furthermore, Pasteur proved that some microorganisms are airborne.

Well, so far, so good. Where'd you steal this, by the way? It's
considered bad form to reproduce the writings of others without giving
proper attribution.

Quoted message said:

Origin of Life - Origin of Species and Modern Day Science Class
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,

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the
origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical
Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3)
Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4)
Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); (5) Macro
Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and (6) Micro Evolution (the
variation within the kinds).

As soon as you see the word "kinds" you know you're dealing with some
sort of Creationists. They're the only ones who use the word that
way.

Quoted message said:

Only the sixth phase has been observed and documented. The first five
are merely assumed.

No, they are not "merely assumed". That would mean we had no
evidence.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, the fourth assumption is the old doctrine of
Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic
matter (a rock).

No, it's not. The notion of Spontaneous Generation that was shot down
by Pasteur is notably different from the notions of abiogenesis in
biology.

Quoted message said:

The sadly comical result is that

...people like Spammin' Dave post nonsense on Usenet.

Quoted message said:

some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco
Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous
Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that
Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life

Given your particular credibility.......

Quoted message said:

As mentioned before, they are quite different concepts.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Wickware said:

Origin of Life - Louis Pasteur

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Origin of Life - Origin of Species and Modern Day Science Class
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,

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the
origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical
Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3)
Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4)
Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); (5) Macro
Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and (6) Micro Evolution (the
variation within the kinds).

As soon as you see the word "kinds" you know you're dealing with some
sort of Creationists. They're the only ones who use the word that
way.

Quoted message said:

Only the sixth phase has been observed and documented. The first five
are merely assumed.

No, they are not "merely assumed". That would mean we had no
evidence.

Exactly.

Exactly wrong, in your case. There is a ton of evidence. That you
are unaware of it is your fault.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco
Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous
Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that
Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life

Given your particular credibility.......

Quoted message said:

As mentioned before, they are quite different concepts.

Miles higher than yours, bunkie. I'm not posting other peoples'
writings as my own, just for starters. The sort of "spontaneous
generation" that pre-Pasteur scientists thought happened is vastly
different from current concepts of abiogenesis. But again, your
prodigious ignorance means you don't know that. Pity.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)