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)