Common sense is such a forgotten virtue

In a letter that Charles Darwin wrote to J.D. Hooker (February 1871), he makes the remarkable suggestion that life may have begun in a;

 

 

“... warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

 

 

 

***

 

The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life.

 

 

This very important and fundamental scientific law can be credited to the work of Louis Pasteur and others.

 

 

 

"La génération spontanée est une chimère."

 

***

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor.

 

What's the method to get to a common ancestor?

 

Abiogenesis 

— n

 

1.            Also called: autogenesis  the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter

2.            another name for spontaneous generation

 

Spontaneous generation

 

— n

Also called: abiogenesis  a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material

 

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

 

2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins

 
To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (53)

  1. SEC

    And the mathmatics of probability discredit it as well.

    January 01, 2014
    1. EZWAYZ

      only to people with common sense.

      January 01, 2014
      1. SEC

        Probability math defeated me in school but even I could see that the probability for all the environmental conditions (light, temperature and pressure), and all the chemicals (37 of them) to be in the same place at the same time in the correct proportions and then for complementary forms to allow continuation to form in close timing was an astromically improbable chance.

        January 01, 2014
        1. EZWAYZ

          addition defeated me but I understood what your saying early on in life and chose to go through life dumb rather than stupid.

          January 01, 2014
          1. SEC

            LoL

            January 01, 2014
            1. EZWAYZ

              January 01, 2014
  2. tulakrystal

    These definitions are awful, incomplete, some of them are flat out wrong, and very misleading.

    January 01, 2014
    1. EZWAYZ

      feel free to upgrade, expand and correct wherever you’d like. I didn’t post it as an in depth piece, only as “sound bites” (so to speak) for discussion.

      January 01, 2014
      1. tulakrystal

        Well, as far as spontaneous generation goes, when they say it was disproved they mean that things like the belief that rotten meat turns into maggots was not true when people used to believe that it was because they didn’t know that the flies had laid their eggs in the meat.


        As far as life arising from non-living things goes, it’s thought that there were different chemicals and conditions on the earth, all over the earth, in pockets, that allowed for life to evolve despite the very harsh conditions that would destroy most life today. They thought that the living things that lived back then were more similar to what we find around the hydrothermal events that we find at the bottom of the ocean, adapted to different conditions. They think that DNA and RNA evolved from much more simple molecules that were able to exist at that time and, somehow, form in to DNA, RNA, and much further in the future cells. The more simple molecules that they believe existed were called TNA, a molecule that has a biochemical structure that contains 4 Carbons as opposed to the 5 carbon rings found in RNA and DNA. The behavior of these chemicals and how they are attracted to one another is dependent on their chemical properties, the same way different substances behave differently depending on their chemical make up. For example, water’s chemical make up causes it to be a polar molecule. Scientists theorize that TNA would have a chemical make up that would allow it to form more complex molecules that would lead to the formation of organic molecules and, eventually, the generation of primitive cells. Therefore, the biogenesis law should also say that life comes from life today, as far as we know.


        There are numerous methods by which organisms can evolve including, genetic drift, survival of the fittest, mutation, and founder’s effect, but the concept of evolution has changed from Darwin’s time to accommodate for the evolution of microorganisms which have been shown to evolve over time in a petri-dish. As a result, the definition of evolution has been, in simplistic terms, changed to mean change over time in living things.

        January 02, 2014
        1. EZWAYZ

          I hope you don’t mind my breaking down my answers to you (below)

          January 03, 2014
  3. Bettymom

    I’m not sticking my toe in the sludge on this one! I’m just glad we got here, however it happened!

    January 01, 2014
    1. EZWAYZ

      lol, you don’t have to talk about it. Talking about abiogenesis won’t change whether you need to go to the grocery story or what time your favorite show comes on.

      January 01, 2014
  4. EZWAYZ

    @ Well, as far as spontaneous generation goes, when they say it was disproved they mean that things like the belief that rotten meat turns into maggots was not true when people used to believe that it was because they didn’t know that the flies had laid their eggs in the meat.
    .
    That’s true in part as described by George Wald (1906 – 1997) Professor of Biology at Harvard University Nobel Laureate
    .
    The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason 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. “The origin of life” Scientific American August 1954 p.46
    .
    He went on to express the only evolutionary strategy left…
    .
    Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. “The origin of life” Scientific American August 1954 p.48
    .
    In other words, now as then, any miracle will do except “godoneit”

    January 03, 2014
  5. This comment has been deleted
  6. EZWAYZ

    @ “As far as life arising from non-living things goes, it’s thought that there were different chemicals and conditions on the earth, all over the earth, in pockets, that allowed for life to evolve despite the very harsh conditions that would destroy most life today. They thought that the living things that lived back then were more similar to what we find around the hydrothermal events that we find at the bottom of the ocean, adapted to different conditions. They think that DNA and RNA evolved from much more simple molecules that were able to exist at that time and, somehow, form in to DNA, RNA, and much further in the future cells. The more simple molecules that they believe existed were called TNA, a molecule that has a biochemical structure that contains 4 Carbons as opposed to the 5 carbon rings found in RNA and DNA. The behavior of these chemicals and how they are attracted to one another is dependent on their chemical properties, the same way different substances behave differently depending on their chemical make up. For example, water’s chemical make up causes it to be a polar molecule. Scientists theorize that TNA would have a chemical make up that would allow it to form more complex molecules that would lead to the formation of organic molecules and, eventually, the generation of primitive cells. Therefore, the biogenesis law should also say that life comes from life today, as far as we know.”
    .
    A whole lot of thinking going on with no proof. Faith is at work in science as much as religion…I know, that’s an old (but true) dig.
    .
    1st TNA while appearing to advance the ball down the field from RNA world just adds more problems to solve without answering any of the questions unanswered by RNA word and DNA replication.
    .
    as for DNADNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. In fact scientist have recently discovered a second code in DNA that instructs the cells on how genes are controlled. And while its true scientists have created XNA, all of XNA’S actions are “completely controlled by experimentalists—it’s 100 percent unnatural,” according to study co-author John Chaput noted.
    .
    as for functional RNA catalysts arise only once RNA bases are specifically-arranged into information-rich sequences—that is, function arises after, not before, the information problem has been solved. Which leads to the next point.
    .
    2nd is intelligence required to write code? if so, where does intelligence come from? If not, when does intelligence enter in? There’s a reason why the biogenesis law hasn’t been changed.

    January 03, 2014
  7. EZWAYZ

    @ There are numerous methods by which organisms can evolve including, genetic drift, survival of the fittest, mutation, and founder’s effect, but the concept of evolution has changed from Darwin’s time to accommodate for the evolution of microorganisms which have been shown to evolve over time in a petri-dish. As a result, the definition of evolution has been, in simplistic terms, changed to mean change over time in living things.
    .
    First, Mendel clearly demonstrated variation or “micro evolution.” I’m not saying that doesn’t happen. Now macro evolution on the other hand. No. that ain’t happening.
    .
    Dobzhansky’s Fruit Flies vs x-rays: scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. The results – fruit flies with extra wings, no wings, huge wings, tiny wings, etc.„ Changes detrimental to survival. No advantages over other fruit flies. Still fruit flies! No progressive beneficial changes from simple to complex No increase in quantity/quality of genetic info.
    .
    as for bacteria experiments, its still bacteria

    January 03, 2014
    1. tulakrystal

      EZWAYZ, I’m not questioning your beliefs, I’m telling you theories that are out there, you can take it or leave it at that. If you really want to learn more about it, you go and get a biology degree or pay a professor that wants to sit down and and argue with you when you are talking about beliefs, but good luck finding one that will actually do that.

      January 03, 2014
      1. EZWAYZ

        I know your not questioning my beliefs, and I realize yours lie opposite of mine in this discussion. I hope I haven’t offended but quire honestly, there’s a huge difference between micro and macro evolution and so far the things you’ve presented haven’t bridge the gap , so to speak, for me. I understand if you don’t want to continue the discussion but I do appreciate your comments

        January 03, 2014
        1. tulakrystal

          I haven’t told you what my beliefs are, so why are you assuming that they are opposite of yours.


          Also, I do not believe it impossible for religious people to understand or discuss science, only that it is highly unlikely that it will get anywhere when beliefs are brought up in such a disorganized fashion. There are entirely too many scientists, doctors, and researchers working for the church and religious schools, performing work and studying this area of research with the goal in mind that science is a tool used to heal the sick and glorify God without taking God away from people and threatening their faith for me to believe that a religious person can not understand science. Plus, I’ve had offers from the church to work for them and am not against that. I think that you either have faith or you do not. Whether or not a person feels threatened by learning about science is another matter.

          January 03, 2014
          1. EZWAYZ

            like I said about dr. southerland, I believe his work with RNA is very valuable, however, I don’t think RNA world will be answered by him in the long run but that’s just my opinion.
            .
            there does seem to a conflict between religion (in my case, Christianity) and science over evolution and even within Christianity over evolution so…

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              I’m not interested in Dr. Southerland even if he had done a lot of work with RNA.


              Yep, I think their is a conflict between religion (Christianity) and science too, but don’t think that it has to be that way.

              January 03, 2014
          2. EZWAYZ

            well, it doesn’t has to be but sometimes it just seems that its easier to say the other is wrong rather than thinking you might be looking at something from opposite side.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              That is annoying.

              January 03, 2014
          3. EZWAYZ

            yeah but pretty common on both sides.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              Yea.

              January 03, 2014
    2. tulakrystal

      Honestly, this is why I should never mention anything about evolution on a forum it always turns into a religious discussion.

      January 03, 2014
      1. This comment has been deleted
      2. tulakrystal

        It never fails.

        January 03, 2014
        1. EZWAYZ

          I believe “micro evolution” occurs…those are the things you enumerated " genetic drift, survival of the fittest, mutation, and founder’s effect" primarily because of the work of Mendel. Macro evolution on the other hand…no.
          .
          One frog species was verifiably traced down the east coast of the United States noting the changes that took place the further south it went. In the end, the Maine representative and the Georgia representative were quite dissimilar and no longer interbred with each other but the steps from one to the other were clearly documented.
          .
          The problem for macro is – they were still frogs regardless of speciation. The evidence for macro is lacking which is the reason in the 1970’s Eldredge and Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium, because the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

          January 03, 2014
      3. EZWAYZ

        religion isn’t just confined to a closet in a boarded up church. however, I think I’ve presented ample “non-religious” evidence of the trouble with abiogenesis.

        January 03, 2014
        1. tulakrystal

          The problem was that you brought religion into the discussion. I’ve noticed that every time someone does that it only ends up with some one’s feelings getting hurt. The discussion never gets anywhere because when religion is brought up the people stop discussing the theory and start discussing their beliefs when that is not necessary. That is why beliefs are not brought up in schools in a biology classroom (in many places), only the theory is discussed to gain an understanding of what is out there in the world.

          January 03, 2014
        2. tulakrystal

          The fact that you presented “non-religious” evidence up, does not negate that you brought up your beliefs, a bad idea in my opinion? What if I were Muslim or Hindu? It shouldn’t make a difference if one were talking about the theory alone without bringing up religious beliefs.

          January 03, 2014
          1. EZWAYZ

            Actually I did talk about evolution on a muslim’s posting once. pretty similar to my thoughts (except about religion of course). I’ve never had the chance to discuss it with a Hindu but I’d love to hear their take on evolution

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              January 03, 2014
        3. tulakrystal

          I think that if I were Muslim or Hindu, I’d say that I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are even mentioning your beliefs because their is no common ground there to start on and you do not not appear to be open to talking about the theory itself making it a pointless endeavor at this time.

          January 03, 2014
          1. EZWAYZ

            that’s fine I’m not trying to win a fight with you. You made your points concerning my initial post. I’m good if you want to continue or not. I think on this we’ll probably just agree to disagree…and its on to bigger and better things

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              Everything that I say is an opinion.

              January 03, 2014
          2. EZWAYZ

            opinions come from facts you’ve been presented somewhere or things presented as fact…that’s true with all of us.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              There are very few pure facts in the world and even facts such as gravity are up for debate in to some degree in things like physics.

              January 03, 2014
          3. EZWAYZ

            Well quantum physics will get you into wirelessguru’s ballpark.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              I liked my physics classes in college, but I will definitely agree that I am, by no means an expert on physics.

              January 03, 2014
          4. EZWAYZ

            I can add and subtract, everything else goes all to pieces. As far as evolution, going back to the big bang, it too has its troubles…the latest idea, a 4th dimension star forming a black hole…well, scientist have some really out of the box thinkers. even 12 year olds are taking on Einstein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKXLg8EeRkQ

            January 03, 2014
        4. tulakrystal

          So, EZWAYZ, do you think I was an idiot for bothering to say anything on this post about this topic, because I think that it most likely was the incorrect thing to do?

          January 03, 2014
          1. EZWAYZ

            I think I was joking with SEC in the comments section when I said that. I’ve never thought that way about you even if we tend to disagree on a subject.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              I don’t know what you are talking about.

              January 03, 2014
          2. EZWAYZ

            sorry I thought you were referencing a comment I made to someone else, my mistake…but then again most folks have no idea what I’m talking about either. Sorry again.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              I don’t know what comment you are referring to.

              January 03, 2014
          3. EZWAYZ

            My second comment to SEC on this post was what I thought you were referencing when you asked if I thought you were an idiot -which I don’t.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              I was not referencing that comment and I wasn’t asking if you thought I was an idiot. That idiot part was unclear. I was asking if that I was acting idiotically for posting scientific information in this post.

              January 03, 2014
          4. EZWAYZ

            no, I was glad you did…surprised but glad. actually I thought I’d hear from one of our resident atheist-evolutionaries.

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              Thanks. Which atheist-evolutionary?

              January 03, 2014
          5. EZWAYZ

            perhaps beezelebob or norwegian rock…idk

            January 03, 2014
            1. tulakrystal

              Ah, I don’t think I know them. *shrugs

              January 03, 2014
  8. wartfinder

    Common sense is not a virtue. It’s a valued asset.

    January 03, 2014
    1. EZWAYZ

      gonna find me some

      January 03, 2014