Spontanious Generation

What came first....The chicken or the egg?

Or you could bring up the very first incling of life on this planet.
Hydrogen/carbon soup and out of the muck sprung???

Competing theories are life evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and travels on microscopic dust particles throughout the galaxy seeding planets such as Earth when conditions are right. It is possible Earth gets a new species or two annually by this process. The other theory is God makes life, however this is not politically correct in liberal atheist colleges. Are there any conservative colleges left? Neil

Joe, Go to the Philosophy and Debate forum. Check the thread entitled The Universe and Space.

It traces life (more or less) from chemicals to us (whatever we are).

Sorry Joe.

You are on the wrong side of this poorly worded question.

Life in the Universe has not existed for ever, and therefore, at least once, life spontaneously generated (this "spontaneous" event may have taken millions, even hundreds of millions, of years).

Whether God had anything to do with it is another question altogether, and one that can not be answered by science.

There was an interesting historical debate where Pasteur showed that life did not spontaneously generate in a short period of time. This can be argued with sterile containers, et. al. Do a search on Pasteur for more information on this.

That's not necessarily true. The universe is constantly changing, but we don't know if it has been around "forever" or not.

People used to believe in spontaneous generation because they could see maggots forming (like magic) on meat left out for too long.
Pasteur (was it pasteur?) showed that this was incorrect by doing two experiments:

he left meat in a jar uncovered for a week with houseflies

he left meat in a jar covered with linen for a week (letting air through but not flies) with houseflies.

The meat left uncovered yielded maggots, the meat left covered did not. Therefore, generation was not spontaneous, the eggs were just not visible to the human eye.

The pasteur experiment involved electricity, and basic substances that were probably found in the early formation of our galaxy. Certain gases, and maybe water? When shocked with electricity (sort of like lighning), very simple life forms are produced. It's a very interesting experiment.
This is understandable because all living things are composed of certain celluar structures, which are at their basics are made up of atoms. Different combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons make elements. There are some very simple single-celled organisms that work like machines. It's not such a big step from atom to cell to organism.

We, as humans are made up of large groupings of cells (acting together) making units (like organs, muscles, etc.) which work together making us, animal.

If I were you, the arguement I would make is that there is generation of very simple organisms without eggs or parents, but that it's not spontaneous. Then back it up with all of the evidence, and describe why spontaneous is the wrong way to approach it, and why you couldn't get anything other than a very simple organism from this. (You couldn't get a "spontaneous" cow. That would require evolution.)
It is not spontaneous, as if out of nowhere, it is a grouping of elements in a way that pleases them, complicated into groupings of organelles, functioning together for mutual benefit (include the role of enzymes, chlorophyll...) I recommend studying up on simple cells and cellular structure, evolution.

Also, you could point out complications in the definition of "life." It doesn't include viruses. And what about chlorophyll? I have a feeling you can hinge your argument around chlorophyll - it exists in both plants and cyanobacteria, and I vaguely remember it having been on it's own at one point in cellular history, then moved in permanently.

As physicist I will tell you it is quite certain that the Universe has *not* been around forever. It has been around for around 15 billion years (give or take 3 billion). There is plenty of evidence for this, and I would be happy to go into more detail if you would like.

Folks on other threads will disagree, but I would trust the Physicists on this one...

I have also never heard about Pasteur experimenting with electricity. His experiements involved killing microbes with heat and then seeing if they would reappear in a sealed container.

I did a quick search and no mention of any experiments with electricity. Do you have a credible link for this?

Joe, spontaneous generation does not occur in the time scale available to your science class. However, we know from the experiments of Miller and others that with a source of energy such as electricity, certain chemicals spontaneously combine to form organic molecules. These molecules may well combine into self-replicating lifeforms given the right conditions and plenty of time.

Spontaneous generation may well have produced life not only on this planet, but on countless other ones in this universe. We cannot prove that it happened without the influence of a god, but on the other hand no one there is no reason to think that a god could spontaneously generate itself and life either.

Joe,
If you're in a public school, I'm sure "god" isn't part of the debate. Right?

Anyway, the way I remember high school biology, the theory of Spontaneous Generation was dispelled with the caveat that it may have certainly happened when life first formed on earth, as Terry has stated. It is, after all, an aspect of the Theory of Evolution.

Merely, it does not occur with complex organisms as complex as bacteria and--barnacle geese.

Interestingly, one of the creationists' arguments against evolution is the absolute rejection of spontaneous generation (aka, abiogenesis).

If Joe is in a public school science class, "God" should not be part of the debate. Science is based on logical analysis of things that are measurable. The existance of God is not part of this study.

God does not make herself available to systematic science study. Science does not have the tools to prove or disprove the existance of any diety that exists outside of the rules of the Universe.

Science does not rule out the role of a creator. However, science is based on a rational search for provable facts. God has no place in a science class.

I should also point out that we live in a Constitutional Democracy. Teaching religion in a public science class goes against the values our nation is built on.

Terry,

Based on my study of science and my understanding of theology, God follows the laws of the Universe.

God set up well defined laws that all objects in the Universe follow. For example, every object in the Universe that has mass, reacts the same way in terms of reaction to force and gravity et. cetera.

I can use these laws perfectly reliably with objects that I can manipulate personally (i.e. when I drop a rock, I know perfectly well what will happen). God does not interfere with this process.

I find it unlikely that God would break Her own laws -- even to start life. It seems more likely to me that God's work was done in creating the rules of the Universe.

Life came about because at the Big Bang, the laws and values for constants were such (as perhaps God designed) that it was inevitable.

If there is a perfect God, She does not need to keep poking around in her perfect creation.

I have never seen evidence that God violates the laws of the Universe. I don't think this is in the nature of God.

hahaha...yes... that's a GREAT start.... just ignore Ican. He'll beat you down with nonsense.

:-D

Second law. And the equations for the making of a cell wall. If you can't find out what you need from those, if I remember, I'll come back with a thread from another forum.

Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with the Second Law. The second law does not mean that spontaneous generation can not occur.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of the second law which is very commonly and mistakenly stated as "Order can not come from disorder."

The second law really says that the "net entropy can not decrease". Entropy is a mathematical and physics idea that roughly corresponds to "disorder". But disorder and entropy are not the same thing.

There are plenty of everyday examples where something goes from a disordered state to an ordered one. Examples include flowers growing from dirt and ice crystalizing.

Yes in both of these examples on a local level entropy is decreasing. The Second law says that for these this to happen there must be a corresponding increase of entropy else where. In this case case energy must enter the system (i.e. ultimately from the sun) and the entropy is balanced here.

If spontaneous generation happened in contradiction of the discovery of Pasteur, this would not violate the second law (although it would violate other laws of science).

As long as the sealed container had access to energy from outside the system, no laws of thermodynamics would be violated.

~Portalstar typed:~ Certain gases, and maybe water? When shocked with electricity (sort of like lightening), very simple life forms are produced, ~Yes except they were simple proteins that are produced, not life. Neil~

ah, thanks neil. You're right. And it wasn't pasteur. I'm a bit rusty on my science, used to be a biology major, but switched out of it a number of years ago. That was a long memory rambling post, but I still hope it was of some help (to joe namath).

e_brown - I'm interested. How do you know the universe (not just our galaxy) hasn't been around forever?

Forever is quite a posibility for the universe, especially when the posibilities seem infinite.

I don't mean to answer for e_brown, but the physical universe is mesurable, and it's dimensions are non-uniform, inconsistent and finite. I think that is why he astrisked 'not' in his statement, "as physicist I will tell you it is quite certain that the Universe has *not* been around forever."

A lot of the theories of the universe in theoretical cosmology have an aspect of infiniteness. These have been posited as a result of the questions brought up by, and problems of the Big Bang Theory.

Here are some of those theories:

The Bouncing Universe

In the 1960's, a physicist named John Wheeler developed the bouncing universe theory. The theory's premise involved having a universe come into being with a bug bang, expand for a while, and then implode at a certain point in time. Upon reaching reaching a certain small size (maybe even a singularity), that universe may "bounce" and re-explode in a new big bang. As a result, the universe follows a cyclical pattern of expansions and contractions.

The Protouniverse

This theory involves the formation of matter from nothingness before the explosion of the big bang. It is related to the white hole theory. A white hole is a theoretical opposite of a black hole, wherein matter would continuously appear at the speed of light, as if from nowhere. Although there is believed to be no observational evidence of white holes, the protouniverse theory was created in an attempt to explain the non-uniformity and the varying density of the universe.


The Inflationary Theory

In 1981, a particle physicist named Alan Guth created a new theory. Guth knew about the matter in physics that explained how elementary particles got their mass. This matter is called scalar field matter. Combining the mathematical equations for scalar field with Einstein's equations describing the expansion of the universe, Guth developed a theory in which large amounts of matter and energy were created from nothing! After matter and energy were created, the universe experienced an accelerated expansion, becoming exponentially large prior to continuing its evolution according to the big bang model. This theory has been worked on and modified by many cosmologists since its introduction.



The Bubble Universe / Andre Linde's Self Creating Universe

The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe." On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.

The "self-creating" in Andre Linde's self-creating universe theory stems from the concept that each bubble or inflationary universe will sprout other bubble universes, which in turn, sprout more bubble universes. The universe we live in has a set of physical constants that seem tailor-made for the evolution of living things. (emphasis mine)

from http://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/newtheories.htm

Portal Star, I just posted a new topic that describes how we know the Universe has a finite history. I would like to move any further discussion there.

InfraBlue,

Three of your theories deal with what happened "Before" the Universe started. They are interesting, but the are not currently testable and therefore are philosophical theories, not scientific ones. Incidently since time started when the Universe started the word "Before" has problems.

The "Inlationary Universe" theory is a scientific theory since it deals with facts that can be tested. This theory assumes that there was a beginning with the Big Bang. The question that this theory addresses has to do with the End more than the Beginning.

This theory is being tested as we speak is still be discussed. It has not been conclusively proven or disproven.

That the Universe has not existed forever has been proven. See my other post for the details and further discussion.

I contest ebrown_p's statement about time. Although the spatial reality we live in had no concrete existence before its creation (except as a point of 'infinite' energy or possible a very singular white hole), we can never know what was "before".

This is a confusing area... For our universe, and only for our universe, OUR time started at its creation. Time as we know it may have existed previously, but as stated above, (or until we can create universes ourselves - unlikely) since we have no way to "test" our theories about it, we have no SCIENTIFIC knowledge of it, and we never will.