A conundrum regarding life's beginnings.

[student]

Recent introductory level biology literature has presented a conundrum to me that I think some of you may be able to elaborate upon for me.

What I have read states that spontaneous generation of life has been proven false (by Louis Pasteur's broth experiments). The standing theory on life is that it can only evolve from previous life (biogenesis). This raises the question in my mind, how could a universe with no divine creator contain life if spontaneous generation is impossible? Is there something my introductory text is misleading me on? What are the current theories in this regard? I appreciate any and all responses.

 

[KaNick]

What broth thing are you talking about, I have never heard of this.

 

[Baleog]

I don't know much about Louis Pasteur's experiment, but I have never heard it said before that spontaneous generation of life is impossible.
I think one idea is that compilcated self replicating molecules can over a large period 'approach' something like life.

 

[WillJ]

Spontaneous generation has never been proven impossible. It's just that the idea that it's all around us (that is, living things often come from nonliving things) has been soundly refuted.

Conditions on the Earth billions of years ago were different than they are now, and it's possible that under those conditions life could have arisen from nonliving matter. Stanley Miller and others have done experiments in which amino acids were artificially created. Life itself has of course never been created, but it's not impossible.

Those wondering what student's talking about with Pasteur, read here.

 

[Gothmog]

Spontaneous generation refers specifically to the idea that, for example, flies spontaneously emerge from rotting meat.

There is much interesting work being done on the topic of abiogenesis. Here's a place to start http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

You do need to define carefully what you mean by 'life', what is the minimum requirement?

Some of the very interesting work is currently being done to try and create an 'artificial' organism either by taking extant life and deleting as many genes as possible or by creating a replicating, metabolizing, evolving entity from scratch.

 

[addiv]

It is my impression that the general consensus on this is that under the right circumstances life can quite easily arise out of non-living molecular strings, something that has been proven by several experiments.

 

[Baleog]

http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/staff/rlynch/sci_class/chap01/pasteur.html

Look at this. It doesn't say anything about spontaneous generation being impossible. Just that it's impossible over a short period in a sterile unmixed environment. Hardly a proof of the statement 'spontaneous generation is impossible'. Just a proof that microbes are carried in dust.

 

[CenturionV]

I find the idea that life of any intelligence or any ability can evolve for unliving matter simply insulting to my intelligence. Essentially if you believe that life came from non-living matter, then you believe that the universe naturally tends towards order, not dis-order, that if you leave something dead long enough it will become alive, that if you leave things the way they are eventually they will become better on there own, without any intelligent imput, basically the rock can become a prince, if you just give it time. Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

Totally rediculous.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Centurion, whats particularly orderly about intelligence? Its just another survival trait that works, like big claws and teeth.

 

[Perfection]

Rember order can come when more disorder is created, and I'll tell ya intelligence causes a lot of disorder!

 

[student]

Interesting and appreciated responses. What I have read claims that spontaneous generation was disproven through Pasteur's experiments. I was very skeptical, and I am glad that your responses have substantiated my skepticism.

Dumb Pothead, I found your analysis of intelligence as a survival trait intriguing, would you care to elaborate? If the path towards life is a means of surviving, does that imply that inanimate matter somehow strives towards survival?

 

[Perfection]

Well, the basic the basic premise with current abiogenesis theory is that through basicly random processes something with the elementary ability to grow and reproduce forms, before this occurs it's all random chemical processes, and there is no evolution occuring. After this elementary ability forms, then we can start seeing some evolution. Once we get to this elementary ability then evolution occurs, now these things could just be a bag of a couple protiens and some RNA all stuck in a fatty membrane, could be something else, but the key is there are changes somewhere in the very early stages of biological development that allows evolution to occur.

 

[Goober]

Hmm, I should remember some of this stuff from Biology 11, I did get 96% in it after all . . .

Dang, too bad I couldn'tve fit Biology 12 into my timetable, stupid small non-flexible timetables . . .