Biogenesis

I've been wondering. There is a law, called the Law of Biogenesis, which states that life only comes from other life. In fact one of the characteristics of life (there are eight) is that it must come from other life.According to the theory of evolution, somewhere, life had to come from non-living matter. This clearly contradicts the Law of Biogenesis, and it wouldn't be life because life must come from other life.So, if evolution is correct, then

the Law of Biogenesis is wrong

we are not alive.

​

The first because evolution is in direct contradiction with the Law of Biogenesis. The second, because somewhere, our ancestors supposedly came from non-living matter, making them not life, making their descendants, including us, not alive.

​

Could somebody please explain this to me?

I read a lot in biology and somehow I managed to miss this law. Perhaps you can give your references to it. How formulated it in the first place and what it says in detail.I also suggest that you change your references to "evolution" in to "abiogenesis" since evolution (as used in this context) is biological evolution which is a model of how living things evolve and says nothing about where they came from. That will stop an early derailment of the discussion into what evolution actually is. You can learn that in some other thread.It would be fun to ask you to define "life" but we'll leave that out for now. What you definitly need is a clear, detailed statement of this "Law" of biogenesis. Be sure that you aren't confused with what was called "spontaneous generation".

The Wikipedia article on biogenesis mentions a Law of Biogenesis.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

It would be fun to ask you to define "life" but we'll leave that out for now.

---

Well, since your other question was answered, I may as well answer this. Life must:

maintain homeostasis

Be made of one or more cells

Require energy

Grow and develop

Adapt

respond to stimuli

reproduce

come from other cells (or life)

I think you should restate the law in your own words in more detail.You should note that there is confusion about it in the wiki article.

Law of Biogenesis.I'd think it would be pretty self-explanitory. Bio=life. Genesis=beginning. The Law of the Beginning of Life. Life only comes from other life.The Law of Biogenesis was made in realization of the falsehood of spontaneous generation. Because we found that life can only come from other life, and not from non-living matter, we wanted to clarify the, um, solidity of the matter by making it a law.However, evolution goes against the Law of Biogenesis by saying that sometime, somewhere, life arose from non-living matter, something that has never been replicated or observed, no matter how many amino acids come from expiraments.

Let me try to move things forward by supplying the information that might turn this into an acceptable thread proposal.Ichthus is providing the creationist perspective of the law of biogenesis, but within biology, the field from which the law of biogenesis originated and in which it still resides, interprets it as only applying to existing life. The bacteria, maggots and whales we see today all spring from the previous generation of bacteria, maggots and whales and not from non-living materials.The law of biogenesis was never intended to apply to evolution or the origin of life, but as a response to the concept of spontaneous generation, which also was not about evolution or the origin of life. It was at one time believed that life could spring from non-living materials. One of the common observations driving this belief was the eventual appearance of maggots in meat left out in the open, because it appeared that the maggots sprang from the spoiled meat. By running a controlled experiment, Francesco Redi way back in 1688 (see Wikipedia entry on Spontaneous Generation) demonstrated that maggots actually come from flies depositing their eggs in the meat, in one case protecting the meat from the environment, and in the other leaving the meat out. In the 19th century Pasteur put the final nail in the coffin of spontaneous generation with a series of careful experiments.It was in the context of disproving spontaneous generation that the law of biogenesis was composed. It has nothing to do with evolution or the origin of life.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

How doesn't spontaneous generation not have to do with evolution? Evolution clearly states that live suddenly (spontaneously) arose from non-living matter.

I think all evolutionists will agree with the first statement, other than there being one exception to the "law".Also from message 1: Close. The fundamental assumption behind the fact and theory of (biological) evolution is that life on planet Earth had to somehow have a beginning. Would you contest that assumption? But what that beginning was is not part of the theory.Seemingly it somehow ultimately was from non-life (the exception to the "law"). But there is nothing in the theory that says that this beginning was or was not via the spark of God. Does not the Biblical creation story seemingly have God creating life from non-life?If you claim that God started life on Earth, I certainly doubt that you will have any evolution theorist claiming evidence either in support or opposition of that claim. Evolutionary theory is agnostic about life's origin. It's a "don't know, don't care" situation.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak formatting to get that extra line feed out of there. Also added the "ultimately".

quote:

---

It's a "don't know, don't care" situation.

---

So, evolutionists are allowed "don't know, don't care" situations but creationists aren't?

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

Adminnemooseus is trying to work with you, not against you. From my perspective you appear to be working very hard at misunderstanding his points.If you'd like to post again in a way that at least gives some hint that you're interested in finding a common understanding then I'll leave this proposal open, but otherwise I'm going to close it. Take your time, there's no hurry, I wait a week before closing an inactive thread proposal.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Sorry.I guess I'm just used to arguing with people here. So, I'd just like to know how evolution (or abiogenesis) gets around the Law of Biogenesis.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

I would say that the Law of Biogenesis pertains to evolution and does not pertain to abiogenesis.From Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders.

​

The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.

---

Your Law of Biogenesis works fine under the presumption that life already exists, and if you consider it not concerned with how life first came to exist. Likewise for evolution.If you are going to invoke the Law of Biogenesis to absolutely preclude any origin of life, where does that leave the religious belief that God was the originator (creator) of life?You know, there tends to always be "the exception to the rule (ie law)".Adminnemooseus

Okay

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

Am I to understand that you accept that:1) The "Law of Biogenesis" does not apply to the ultimate origin of life.2) The "Law of Biogenesis" does apply after that however origin of life came to be.If so, it would seem that you're accepting that either:1) There was a single point of life's origin, and subsequent diversity was from evolution.or2) There were multiple but still a finite number of points of life's origin, and further diversity was from evolution.or3) There were multiple and essentially infinite numbers of points of life's origin, with any further diversity via evolution being minimal.Number 1 would seem to be mainstream evolutionary thought.Number 2 would seem to be the mainstream creationist position. It could be young Earth or old Earth.Number 3 would seem to be some variety of creationism, be it young Earth or old Earth. It would seem to be an even more extreme version of creationism than what any creationist proposes.I think we do still have a viable topic here. What it is working out to be is being a "Great Debate" type topic without ever getting out of the "Proposed New Topics" forum. That is, it's a debate restricted to being between just you and me.Would you be interested in moving this to the "Great Debate" forum and having it being restricted to you and Minnemooseus (the non-admin mode)? Such sound good to me.Adminnemooseus