Biogenesis
Or
“Life” Comes from “Life”
Darwinian Evolution is Based on
Spontaneous Generation or “Abiogenesis”
It was once thought that……………
Decaying Meat
Garbage
“Abiogenesis” the process of living material (‘life’)
originating from non-living material (‘non-life’)
The Idea of Spontaneous Generation is Not ‘New’
It’s at Least 2500 Years Old!
The ancient philosopher Anaximander of Miletus (550 BC)
taught that life first generated by materialistic processes from
sea slime. However, this idea failed to explain the issue of
organic design: Why does the universe appear to be ordered
and designed to function so well together? Origin of the Laws
of Mathematics/Physics?
Empedocles (450 BC) was one of the first to appreciate this
problem when he realized that the phenomenon of adaptive
complexity required a specific naturalistic explanation.
Empedocles proposed that the fantastic shapes of organic and
inorganic objects was the result of the continual, random flux of
matter. Everything that exists was generated by the purely
chance interaction of all possible combination of elements, with
those combinations that were ‘stable’ surviving.
(…..But why is this not going on today?)
Naturalistic Explanations of Origins Must Begin
with “Spontaneous Generation”
“The universe began with a ‘big bang’ 15 billion
years ago. The stars formed 10 billion years ago, the
sun formed 5 billion years ago and the molten earth
came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago”.
“Water formed on the earth some 3.8 billion years
ago and over hundreds of millions of years life
formed from non-life through the processes of
Natural Selection and Mutation; then evolved into
fish, then amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, then
ape-like creatures and then man—a process
involving chemical & biological innovation, death
and extinction.”
Spontaneous Generation or Abiogenesis Was Disproven
Before Darwin Published Origin of Species
The theory of abiogenesis or more commonly, spontaneous
generation, was challenged by scientific experiments, such
as those performed by the Italian biologist Francesco Redi
in 1668. Redi demonstrated that maggots (the young of
flies) did not appear in meat from which adult flies were
excluded. Previously, many scientists had believed that
flies developed from decaying meat. Up until the late 1700’s
some scientists still believed that mice were generated in
piles of rotting garbage.
But Darwinian Evolution is based on
Spontaneous Generation!
Francesco Redi’s Experiments
The theory of spontaneous generation was disproven by a series of scientific
experiments performed by the Italian biologist and founder of experimental biology,
Francesco Redi, and published in 1668 as Experiments on the Generation of Insects;
which is regarded as a milestone in the history of modern science.
In one experiment he put raw meat into three jars; one jar remained uncovered, one
was covered with gauze & the third was sealed with a cork.
Redi demonstrated that maggots (the larval stage of flies) did not appear in meat from
which adult flies were excluded. Maggots only appeared on surfaces accessible to flies
such as the opened jar and the gauze on top of the jar.
Also, when dead flies or maggots were put in sealed jars with dead animals or veal, no
maggots appeared, but when the same thing was done with living flies, maggots did.
He continued his experiments by capturing the maggots and observing them
metamorphosizing into flies demonstrating their complete life-cycle.
Although these experiments seem simplistic and self-evident compared to modern
science, they were considered remarkable at the time.
Perhaps
But, surprisingly,
even moreeven
surprising
up until
is the
thatlate
prominent
1700’s some
scientists
scientists
todaystill
think that life
arose
believed
spontaneously
that mice were
fromgenerated
a “primordial
in piles
soup
of”rotting
under the
garbage!
“right” conditions!
Louis Pasteur’s Experiments
The theory of spontaneous generation was largely
abandoned in the mid-1800's. By then, improvements in
microscopes and other scientific instruments had enabled
scientists to see the eggs and sperm of higher animals, the
ovules (eggs) and pollen of plants, and bacteria and other
microorganisms.
For example, in the mid-1800's, the French scientist Louis
Pasteur
observed
reproduction
and
growth
in
microorganisms. He demonstrated that the microorganisms
would grow in sterilized broth only if the broth was first
exposed to air that contained their spores (reproductive
cells).
Pasteur's discoveries led to the development of the cell
theory of the origin of living matter. The cell theory is
based on all life originating from pre-existing living
material. This is also known as the “law of biogenesis”.
Living material always comes from living material.
Biogenesis and “Recapitulation’
The term ‘biogenesis’ has also been used in reference to
the biogenetic (or recapitulation) theory. This theory,
which was popular during the late 1800's, stated that
This statement
“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.
means that during its ontogeny;
that is, during its
development in the embryonic stage
each organism
recapitulates (repeats) various stages in its species'
phylogeny (evolutionary history). Scientists disproved this
theory in the early 1900's.
Recapitulation is classically depicted in Ernst Haeckel’s
[faked] drawings. He was a German zoologist who lived
from 1834 to 1919.
Ernst Haeckel’s Fake Drawings (top row)
‘Recapitulation’ Ernst Haeckel’s Legacy
What the modern textbooks and encyclopedias fail to
mention is that the original drawings of embryonic stages,
by a German zoologist named Ernst Haeckel [1834-1919],
that supposedly shows that each animal during its growth
as an embryo, repeats the changes its ancestors underwent,
were found to be faked. Yet these pictures still appear in
many modern biology textbooks to support the discredited
theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation of living
material.
Thus, this false idea of spontaneous generation
(abiogenesis) is carried over into modern times. Note the
following quotes from the Grolier’s and World Book
encyclopedias…………...
…..Although Discredited, Spontaneous Generation, or
‘Abiogenesis’ Is Still Being Taught as Fact!
“Although it is now known that all present life on
Earth is the result of the reproduction of pre-existing
life, many scientists accept a modified theory* of
spontaneous generation to explain the origin of life
itself. The theory holds that billions of years ago LIFE
originated in the oceans as the result of spontaneous
aggregations of dissolved organic molecules, which
in turn arose from inorganic chemical reactions
energized by ultraviolet light, electrical discharges,
and heat.”
Grolier’s Encyclopedia (1998)
*The only thing that’s ‘modified’ is the hypothesis (although
disproven) that Abiogenesis occurred at least once!
The Impossibility of Abiogenesis is Explained
Away As a “One-Time Event”
“Today, most scientists believe that spontaneous
generation took place at least once when certain chemicals
came together to form the first simple living organism more
than three billion years ago. This process is not thought to
be occurring in nature today, since conditions on the earth
no longer favor such chemical combinations. In addition,
any simple organisms that did form in this way would
almost certainly fail to compete successfully against more
complex
existing
organisms.
However,
laboratory
experiments since the mid-1900's have showed that many
molecules found in living organisms can be synthesized
(produced artificially). Most biologists believe that it will
eventually be possible to produce simple forms of life in the
laboratory*.”
World Book Encyclopedia (1998)
*Wrong! Please refer to the Creation Topic “Biogenesis”
But No Evidence of Abiogenesis ‘One-Time Event’
“Rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the
past two decades and in none of them has any trace of
abiotically produced organic compounds been found…..
So ancient are these rocks that they must have been lain
down not long after the formation of the oceans
themselves…….Considering the way the pre-biotic soup is
referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as
an already established reality, it comes as something of a
shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive
evidence for its existence.”
Michael Denton, Ph.D., Microbiologist, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, (Adler & Adler, 1986), p. 261.
Theory of Darwinian Evolution Violates
the “Law of Biogenesis”
• Life Is ALWAYS Observed As Coming From Pre-existing
Life. This Is True Even in “Cloning”.
• Reversibility of Chemical Reactions in Water Works
Against Spontaneous Generation of “Life”.
• Spontaneous Generation or Abiogenesis Has Never Been
Observed
or
Successfully
Demonstrated
Under
Laboratory Conditions. [e.g., next series of slides]
• Many scientists have tried to re-create “life” from
inorganic compounds such as the Miller-Urey Experiment
only to fail each time.
Scientist in lab………
“If I can create life in a test tube, then it will prove that
no intelligence was necessary to create it!”
The Miller-Urey Experiment (1953)
Starting Materials Completely Hypothetical
NO Oxygen allowed!
Large Amounts of Ammonia and Methane
Had ‘trap’ to condense out
harmful gases.
• Spark mechanism
provided the energy…...
•
•
•
•
…..but destroyed
some products.
Miller-Urey Experimental Results
•
•
•
Major Product was Tar {Organic Sludge} = 85.0%
Carboxylic Acids Not Important to Life = 13.0%
Only Two of the Simplest Amino Acids Formed.
– Glycine = 1.05%
– Alanine = 0.85%
• Other Amino Acids = 0.1%
–
–
Glutamic Acid
Aspartic acid
Leucine
Serine
Proline
Valine
Threonine
• Only a total of 9 out of the 20 Amino Acids
Comprising the “Building Blocks of Life” Were
Formed and Only in Very Small Quantities.
Miller-Urey Experimental Summary
• Equal Mixtures of “Left” & “Right” Handed Amino
Acids Formed. In Nature Amino Acids Occur
Only in the “Left-handed” Form.
• In Many Cases “Right” Handed Amino Acids are
“Poisonous” to Enzymes and Living Cells.
• Proteins Cannot Be Formed in the Presence of
Amino Acids
• This Process Cannot Form Cellular Components
– Cell Nucleus, Mitochondria, Endoplasmic Reticulum
– DNA Cannot Be Produced by These Reactions
• No Nobel prize ever awarded!
More “Life” Can Be Found in a Bowl of
Chicken Soup!
“Life” in A Test Tube?
Regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment,
evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated:
“Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded
tar as its most abundant product....There are about fifty small
organic compounds that are called 'building blocks'.....Only
two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey
products.”–Robert Shapiro, Origins-A Skeptics Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth, (1986),pg. 105.
In the past forty years, many scientists have repeated the
work of Miller and Urey. Electrical sparks, heat, ultraviolet
radiation, light, shock waves, and high energy chemical
catalysts have been used in an attempt to create the building
blocks of life. In general, when amino acids have been made,
they occur in approximately the same proportion, with
glycine and alanine predominating, as in the Miller-Urey
experiment.
Summarizing Abiogenesis
Darwinism requires spontaneous generation
to “kick-start” the process of evolution.
But spontaneous generation, i.e.,
abiogenesis, has been disproven repeatedly
by scientists such as:
•
•
•
Francesco Redi (1668)
Louis Pasteur (1862)
Stanley Miller & Harold Urey (1953)
Where does that leave Darwinism?
If Spontaneous Generation Does Not Occur
then Macro-Evolution Cannot Occur!
Dogmatic Adherence to Darwinism in the ‘Face’
of Overwhelming Evidence Reveals “Blind Faith”
Dr. George Wald (1906-1997) was professor Emeritus of
Physiology at Harvard University and shared the Nobel
prize in that field in 1967. He summarizes the real issue:
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One
is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other
is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third
possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproven 120 years
ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only
one possible conclusion: that life arose as a supernatural
creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically
because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I
choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible—spontaneous
generation
arising
to
evolution.”—Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.
An Honest Assessment of Darwinism
“Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists
committed to document the all-purpose role of
natural selection. It is a creed with masses of
people who have at best a vague notion of the
mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin,
let alone as further complicated by his
successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of
a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief
which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a
belief in the meaninglessness of existence."
Dr. R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National
Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.