Re: Abiogenesis and the Ency Brit

Tim Ikeda (tikeda@sprintmail.com)
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:54:09 -0500

Hello Joseph,
Your write:
[...]
> No matter how abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are
> lexicographically manipulated, they share the meaning of life
> arising from nonliving matter.

This is correct. However, ideas about what kinds of organisms
could be generated spontaneously have changed over time. For
example, the idea that mice were spontaneously generated was knocked
out of the running pretty easily, but it took experiments like
Pasteur's to eliminate things like wheat extracts as sources that
"generated" infusoria. Currently, and with few exceptions, things
like the spontaneous generation of say, dairy cattle, are not
accepted. Perhaps it's possible for self-replicators smaller than
bacteria but that is unknown.

> There is no importance in whether the event was spontaneous, like
> the Egyptian serpent, or aided, like Prometheus' clay man. All such
> speculations have never been observed and every experiment has
> failed. Therefore, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the
> stuff of fiction, not science.
[...]

That is correct. The actual origin of life on earth or the mechanism
by which it came to be remains undetermined.

Evolution of that life is another subjectr.

Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)