It’s too bad that this topic has become an argument of definitions. What is needed is a clear definition of several terms used throughout the debate to keep everyone on the same terms. Why do we need to argue about the difference between “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”? While they are similar, they have subtle differences in the history of their use. “Abiogenesis” is derived from New Latin: a - (not) -bio- (life) -genesis- (origins). Therefore, abiogenesis could refer to any theory that produces life without having another living entity involved with its generation. Today, most scientists use “abiogenesis” when referring to the production of extremely basic life produced in the primordial soup of the early earth. In my posts, I will use “abiogenesis” only when referring to this phenomenon.
I use the term “spontaneous generation” when referring to the specific theory of life arising from non-life occurring commonplace in our modern world (e.g. mice are spawned from hay, maggots from meat, and microorganisms from air). This archaic belief began to be refuted in 1668 when Francesco Redi demonstrated that no maggots formed on meat when a wire screen prevented flies from laying their eggs on the meat. In 1683, bacteria were discovered and a new version of spontaneous generation became popular. Bacteria seemed to spontaneously appear in organic matter even when the container was covered with a screen or sealed with a stopper. Then, Louis Pasteur discovered sterilization methods and the presence of bacteria in air. Soon the theory of spontaneous generation was no longer accepted.
There are my definitions of “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”. It would streamline the discussion if these terms are used as such. One should not disprove spontaneous generation and claim to be disproving abiogenesis. Nor should proof of abiogenesis be used to ratify spontaneous generation.
On another note, Juhrahnimo wrote:
And the REASON they distance themselves from abiogenesis is the "amino acid problem" that is absolutely insurmountable. There is just no way for enough left handed amino acids to come about by "chance" to make even ONE right handed protein. The probability of that happening by itself is 10 to the oh, 1200th or so power I believe (law of probability is 10 to the 50th power, don't forget). And even if that DID happen, we would have only ONE protein that COULDN'T survive on it's own because it would have NO instructions, much less a mechanism, to replicate itself.
No, the production of proteins isn't
that unfeasible. Here is a relatively long, quite exhausting, but extremely thorough paper explaining the probability of the production of a simple cell containing 12 proteins, each of which consist of 14 amino acids. I would suggest reading the summary to get the gist of the paper, then referencing the middle sections to find calculations and evidence. I find this paper well-substantiated, as the author aims to be as quantitative as possible while he attempts to answer the questions posed by the origin of life.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf
This message has been edited by Gordon, 11-07-2005 08:52 PM
™ Version 4.2