Which scientist supported/ did not support Spontaneous Generation?
Louis Joblot Aristotle Van Helmont Franasco Red. John Needham Comte de Buffon Schroder, van Dusch Shultze Schvvann Lazzaro Spalltazani Anton Lavoisier Pasteur, Louis Georges Leclerc, comte de Buffon Theodor Schwann Robert Hooke Antonie van Leeuwehoek
Who disproved the idea of spontaneous generation?
Many persons did, the most known of them being Francisco Redi (1668), Lazzaro Spallanzani, and Louis Pasteur (1859). Have a look to this interesting, short historical review: "The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)" http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html
Do 21st Century scientists still believe in spontaneous generation?
Most scientists I know do not accept the theory of spontaneous generation as a legitimate start point for the origin of life. Regardless of your faith, the idea that life formed on its own over time is just not supported by available evidence. Simple organic molecules can form spontaneously, but even these will break down instead of becoming more complex over time. With that said, there is good evidence that life forms with less complexity formed first. The fossil record appears to show a steady progression from less complex to more complex. The idea that these less complex life forms somehow became more complex over time on their own, however, is not supported by evidence. We observe the opposite reaction now. Natural processes in the universe push reactions from more ordered to less ordered. Newton called this the second law of thermodynamics. Basically everything dies. Even adaptive mutations typically result in less complexity. Intelligent design is a belief of course, but spontaneous generation is also a belief. There is more compelling evidence for intelligent design as a theory of origins then there is for life forming on its own.
Since Spontaneous Generation-abiogenesis was disproved in 1859 by Louis Pasteur, where did life come from?
Since Spontaneous Generation-abiogenesis was disproved in 1859 by Louis Pasteur, where did life come from?There is is a very big difference between the straw man presentation of abiogenesis by wilfully ignorant science deniers, and what scientists say about the origin of life.Image taken from this very good answer:Rick Thorne's answer to How can anyone still believe in evolution when probabilities of spontaneous generation of nucleic acids is so ridiculously small?Pasteur’s experiment refuted (not surprisingly with the knowledge that we have today) the idea of spontaneous generation, which is the same as the straw man argument of abiogenesis that creationists use today. Here is a short description of his experiment:Louis Pasteur Experiment: Refute Spontaneous GenerationAlthough scientists do not have all the answers for abiogenesis yet, they already know quite a lot, and an educated Christian and scientist like Dr. Francis Collins, former Head of the Human Genome Project, reckons that we might have the answer to abiogenesis in as little as fifty years.Here he is in a five minute clip, talking about that and rejecting the pseudoscientific rubbish of Intelligent Design (politely, because he is talking to an ID audience):
Spontaneous Generation. Impossible?
Did you ask any of these guys if god did it? For me, that is the impossibility.
What are the statistical odds-against the"spontaneous-generation theory?
To science_geek - YOUR ANSWER IS MISLEADING SO Stop with the "sematic" bs..It is very possible to calculate the possibilities of amino-acids combining to form protein which is the essential BUILDING BLOCKS for life.......Since we KNOW the number of amino acids that are needed(20)..A typical protein is made up of a chain of 445 left-handed amino acids.and we know that only left handed strands are used..We can now apply the laws of probability to this. The chances of an average protein consisting of 445 amino acids forming by chance are one chance out of 10^123...There are 124 amino acids in ribonuclease and they must all be in order and must all be correct, or else the protein, ribonuclease, will not work as ribonuclease So the odds for randomly chemically forming ribonuclease are 1 in 17^124).? That is about as easy as getting a royal flush nineteen consecutive times...So science (the) geek.feel free to STOP with your MIS-INFORMATION...As the scientist(s) above calculated the odds
Why we no longer believe in spontaneous generation?
3 scientists lead us not to believe in spontaneous generation. 1. In 1668, Redi made an experiment were he set out meat in a variety of flasks, some open to the air, some sealed completely, and others covered with gauze. As he had expected, maggots appeared only in the open flasks in which the flies could reach the meat and lay their eggs. 2. In 1745, Needham boiled chicken broth, put it into a flask, sealed it, and waited - sure enough, microorganisms grew. Needham claimed victory for spontaneous generation. 3. In 1859, Louis Pasteur boiled meat broth in a flask, heated the neck of the flask in a flame until it became pliable, and bent it into the shape of an S. Air could enter the flask, but airborne microorganisms could not - they would settle by gravity in the neck. As Pasteur had expected, no microorganisms grew. When Pasteur tilted the flask so that the broth reached the lowest point in the neck, where any airborne particles would have settled, the broth rapidly became cloudy with life. Pasteur had both refuted the theory of spontaneous generation and convincingly demonstrated that microorganisms are everywhere - even in the air.