Spontaneous Generation

  • 14 Replies
  • 4531 Views
Spontaneous Generation
« on: August 09, 2006, 05:27:50 PM »
I am not talking about an Ur-Being, or primordial soup or what not, I am talking about Classical Abiogenesis.


For example, mice generate from decaying hay.


Here is my theory:

1.)  Life is capable of being generated from certain substances depending on several conditions:

    a.)  Free airflow must be present to the material that will be generating the organism.
    b.)  Multiple types of animals may be produced by the material, so long as the local conditions of those animals allow for it.
    c.)  The material must be decaying.

2.)  Life is capable of being generated sexually, as in through the combination of an egg and sperm, and in fact, will be the norm.  However, in extreme cases, animals can be formed from decaying, inanimate matter.

3.)  The aspect of God is not taken into account in this theory.  Whether exists a God or not is irrelevant to the direct implications of this theory.  We are assuming (for the sake of simplicity) that no god or otherworldly power takes part in this process, and that it occurs readily throughout the globe, when the proper conditions are met.


Please refute my theory.

[This theory is currently under revision]
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2006, 06:34:15 PM »
Your theory is underdetermined and redundant.  You aren't sufficiently specific about part 1, especially part 1b.  Furthermore, all phenomena described by part 1 can be equally easily described by the conventional theory of reproduction.

A direct refutation of your theory is that the conditions listed in part 1 are insufficient: any time those conditions obtain, I can irradiate the material in question, and no new organisms will appear.  If you add the condition that the material must not be irradiated, then I demand that you list all conditions, so that I can illustrate either how they are equivalent to some conventional form of reproduction, or how they are insufficient for generation of new organisms.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2006, 07:09:47 PM »
Will do.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

gc

  • 65
Re: Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2006, 08:09:39 PM »
Quote from: "Astantia"


Please refute my theory.


I think Louis Pasteur already did over a hundred years ago.

Link

Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2006, 08:14:23 PM »
Well, I am in the process of refining it, but that is not unrestricted air flow, it is controlled air flow.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2006, 11:46:38 PM »
Instead of refining the theory, why don't you just go ahead and test it?  You need to ensure that the "unrestricted airflow" isn't randomly carrying organisms in from outside, and that organisms in the system aren't just reproducing as usual.

Otherwise, your theory is useless.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

Demosthenes

  • 651
  • Leader of the Anti-Loli coalition
Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2006, 02:27:31 PM »
This kind of reminds me of the "Getting pregnant by sitting on a toilet seat" theory.

Just saying...

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2006, 04:02:40 PM »
How does your theory deviate from the abiogenetic status quo? I thought it was widely accepted that life is capable of spontaneously occuring given certain conditions.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2006, 09:36:04 PM »
Abiogenesis happens.  Here's what you do:

1) Buy a raw steak
2) Put steak in container
3) Put (open) container in a shed
4) Leave container there for a few days
5) Go back and observe the maggots that spawned from an inanimate steak

Well, I guess it doesn't really happen like that.  But I suspect that abiogenesis happened at one point or another--unless there's currently a more accepted theory for the initial creation of life in the universe.
ooyakasha!

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2006, 10:11:48 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Abiogenesis happens.  Here's what you do:

1) Buy a raw steak
2) Put steak in container
3) Put (open) container in a shed
4) Leave container there for a few days
5) Go back and observe the maggots that spawned from an inanimate steak

Well, I guess it doesn't really happen like that.  But I suspect that abiogenesis happened at one point or another--unless there's currently a more accepted theory for the initial creation of life in the universe.


Don't the maggots come from flies landing on it and getting biz-ay?
(please correct my stupidity if applicable)

Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2006, 10:19:14 PM »
Well, I have decided to retract my theory.


Not on any basis of it being disproven, just upon the fact that it IS unnecesary.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

gc

  • 65
Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2006, 09:15:51 AM »
Quote from: "Knight"

Well, I guess it doesn't really happen like that.  But I suspect that abiogenesis happened at one point or another--unless there's currently a more accepted theory for the initial creation of life in the universe.


Read about "RNA world" theory. Go to google and type in "RNA world" or something similar.

Quote
Not on any basis of it being disproven, just upon the fact that it IS unnecesary.


Why does everyone ignore my posts when I prove them wrong?

Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2006, 09:26:17 AM »
I didn't ignore your post, I even responded to it with my rebuttal.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden

?

gc

  • 65
Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2006, 09:43:03 AM »
Quote from: "Astantia"
I didn't ignore your post, I even responded to it with my rebuttal.


There was a rebuttal? All I saw was "Well, I am in the process of refining it, but that is not unrestricted air flow, it is controlled air flow". Care to explain more? If the air is not filtered in some way, bacteria and mold spores will enter the container and grow. You can let air flow all you want, as long as no particles enter nothing will grow. That theory has long been disproven.

Spontaneous Generation
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2006, 09:48:55 AM »
The air was forced to enter a tube, one that was not allowing for air to pass unrestricted over the matter, in this case, soup broth.


But, this theory is useless, as we already have a perfectly good explanation for the existance of animals on the earth.
quot;Pleasure for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need."
-Nathaniel Branden