Evolution question?

Question

If spontaneous generation has been disproven, then how can the theory of evolution even be considered as a possibility? Nature can't change something that it can't start.

Answer 1

response to the finch response, yet you won't see that finch turn into a lizard or dog. It will still be a finch

Answer 2

You show a severe lack of knowledge in this area, but at least you're asking.
Spontaneous generation has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. One is chance over time, and one is creation of matter from nothing. One follows the laws of the universe, and the other is magic. One is a scientific theory, and the other sounds like creationism.

So you're asking if creationism isnt' real, then why is evolution a possibility? Because evolution is a scientific fact, spontaneous generation verges on religious mumbo jumbo.

Answer 3

Spontaneous generation is an ancient concept that the rots and vermin that destroyed food were born from the food itself -- mice being born from grain was included in the concepts. Pasteur performed a series of experiments to show that by boiling and filtering air, broth would remain in a flask unspoiled. Remove the filter and it would spoil quickly.

Pasteur did not disprove abiogenesis. This is the hypothesis that in a sterile environment, given vast amounts of time and the volume of the oceans, that life can arise. The universal nature of the genetic code suggests life arose only once.

Answer 4

Spontaneous generation was disproven, yet a man who ran an experiment by putting all the elements the Earth had before life and ran an electric charge through it found that the molecules started piecing together into amino acids and other life-forming molecules, interesting, huh???

Answer 5

I guess your question concerns how life could have arisen from non-life. Biologists only have hypotheses concerning this question. Here's just one:

Step 1: Miller-Urey experiments: model systems of the gases and environmental conditions of early Earth are shown to make the building blocks of life: nucleic acid and amino acids.

Step 2: polymerization of building blocks: nucleic acids join together to form RNA (this step may involve high temperatures (lava) or montmorillonite clay)

Step 3: natural selection: some RNAs are more stable than others. RNA can self-replicate. Those that are more stable self-replicate more....Only the most stable RNAs survive. Some RNAs are more stable because they have an inherent tendency to associate with protective molecules (proteins and phosphoplipids). Some RNAs might, for example, be protected by a phospholipid bubble ( a proto-cell membrane).

Life did not begin within a spark but with by a gradual increase in the associations formed by macromolecules.

Answer 6

You're arguing two separate points; combining them into an impossible.
Evolution is a fact (even John Paul II admitted it) not a theory.
If you truly believe in spontaneous generation, then why are ancestors so primitive?

Answer 7

the gradual build up over millions of years does not fit my definition of spontaneous.

hey how about you? if you believe God just snapped his fingers and made all the life on earth (which happens to resemble life that's been evolving for a billion + years), then clearly you must believe in spontaneous generation right? all those experiments that disprove it are just what? performed wrong?

Answer 8

You are completely wrong.Look at fish in a tank.The size of the tank does make a differance in certain instances.Look up charles darwin's research on the finch.He proved inviromental evolution with a certain species of finch by changing the finch's inviroment.