Evolution has been Disproven

1) The claim that evolution requires that life comes from non-life is false.2) Spontaneous generation is used to refer to the appearance of "modern" organisms in short timescales - such as the idea that decay caused the production of microbes, as investigated by Pasteur.
This is not the same as modern ideas of abiogenesis, and it is good to use seperate terms to distinguish the concepts.3) As has been pointed out Pasteur's experiments did not disprove the idea that life could come from non-life. They did disprove specific ideas concerning spontaneous generation at the time.4) The law of biogenesis supports evolution. Since we cannot invoke the idea of life appearing from non-life as a regular event most of the life around us must be the product of other life. This requires some form of evolution to explain the observed diversity of life.In summary:
Evolution does not require that life come from non-life
Pasteur did not prove that life cannot come from non-life
The law of biogenesis supports evolution rather than disproving it.

I am going to give a slightly different answer to the others.Technically spontaneous generation and abiogenesis could be seen as meaning hte same thing. However in actual use the terms refer to very different things.Spontaneous generation referred to the belief that modern life was coming into existence from non-living matter as a matter of course - in a relatively short period of time (days to months). In Pasteur's particular experiment - as I stated - the point was to show that microbes caused decay rather than being a product of decay,Abiogenesis refers to modern research on the origins of life. It assumes that the first life will be far simpler than modern life (how simple depends on where the dividing line between life and non-life is drawn). It relies not on modern conditions, but on reconstruction of the conditions billions of years ago. It does not assume that the process could be complete in days, months or even centuries.The underlying ideas are really very very different, and Pasteur's experiment in no way disproves modern ideas of abiogenesis. It can't - it doesn't consider the conditions or the chemistry or the timescales relevant to modern theories at all. Because it wasn't intended to - it was intneded to deal with ideas of spontaneous generation current in Pasteur's time.So in summary. Pasteur's experiemnt did not and could not disprove abiogenesis
And even if it did it still would not and could not disprove evolution.

I suggest you reread my post above (post 19). The difference is much greater than just the time periods involved.

Evolution has no more need for abiogenesis than any other branch of biology. Without living organisms to study there would be no study of living organisms.Evolution requires life - it has no requirements as to the origin of that life.

Perhaps you would like to explain how information can reasonably measured in these cases.You might also like to explain the basis of your assertion that the first DNA appeared before chirality was established. Given that the serious researchers are largely agreed that DNA life was preceded by RNA-based replicators (which themselves may have been preceded by simpler replicators) it does not appear to be a known fact - or even likely.

I find it interestign htat you are dismissing all the facts and arguments that have been presented on the basis of a questionable interpretation of a dictionary reference.The phrase:

quote:

---

formerly thought to explain the origin of microorganisms

---

most likely refers to the view Pasteur WAS working against - that the presence of modern microrganisms in decaying matter was the result of spontaneous generation. It certainly does not mean that abiogenesis has been disproven - since that is not true.Of course by your logic we should reject Pasteur's findings. Since life cannot cause decay unless life exists the belief that decay is produced by microorganisms must - according to you - rely on abiogenesis and according to you it must therefore be regarded as false. Surely this tells you that your logic is false ? If something relies on the existence of life it does NOT follow that it requires life to come into existence in a particular way.Given the faulty logic, the misreading of the dictionary (and inferring far too much from a simple dictionary entry) and the fact that you ignore all the points raised against you - despite being unable to rebut them I have to ask whether you really honestly meant what you wrote. Surely a considered response should take into account the fact that you have offerend no reaonable argument to support the extension of Pasteur's results into modern hypotheses concerning abiogenesis, nor any valid reason to support your assertion that evolution relies on abiogenesis. Simply repeating assertions that are clearly highly dubious at best, and which you cannot suppport is in direct violation of rule 4 of this forum.

quote:

---

Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided

---

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-22-2003]

Both your sources confirm that there is a clear distinction between the "archaic" ideas concering spontaneous generation that Pasteu disproved, and modern ideas of abiogenesis.Essentially your argument is to assert that since the dictionary definitions do not mention these differences then they do not exist. That is an absurd argument because it demands that the labels we attach to ideas must take precedence over that actual content of those ideas. You have not proven that the actual ideas are identical - and I find it hard to believe that you could honestly make a claim which is so evidently false.The closest to a substnative poitn in your post is the claim of Sullivan that the evidence renders biogenesis the only possible conclusion. This argument presumes that the evidence is complete enough ot reach a reliable conclusion which is false. At present abiogenesis is a live possibility and researchers are still making slow progress on that front.

Indeed. According to Miller, Urey didn't even think that the experiment would produce positive results at all - and the actual results even exceeded Miller's more obvious expectations.Just a moment...Defender might also like to note this statement:
"But spontaneous generation means two things. One is the idea that life can emerge from a pile of rags. The other is that life was generated once, hundreds of millions of years ago. Pasteur never proved it didn't happen once, he only showed that it doesn't happen all the time. "Perhaps this time it'll sink in.

Unfortunately for you, your argument is false. We do have evidence that natural processes are rsponsible for the diversification of life. So what you are really saying is:"Why is evolution tied to abiogenesis ? Because creationists want an excuse to ignore the evidence for evolution"Which certainly seems to be the truth.