Scientists?

Question

Ok you guys are all about facts and scientific evidence right? What you want is proof. Well if you do, why are you contradicting yourselves? Remember the Redi experiment? He proved that living matter CAN'T come from nonliving matter. Now somewhere along the line, someone disproved him or found some other facts or what happened? was he disproven? How is evolution true if he proved that it can't be? I don't want anyone who is just going to ramble on on how stupid I am or say "Evolution has been proven many times" I want solid evidence of evolution or how this guy was disproven.

http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/staff/TimLynch/sci_class/chap01/redi.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Redi

Answer 1

Redi proved (339 years ago) that maggots did not spontaneously generate from nonliving matter.

Your argument is roughly akin to saying that ancient Greek astronomers disproved the existence of planets beyond Saturn.

Answer 2

Francesco Redi proved only that if flies can't lay their eggs, maggots don't form. This has nothing whatever to do with abiogenesis, or "that living matter CAN'T come from nonliving matter." What Redi did prove was that the ancient Roman superstition concerning the "spontaneous generation" of maggots from meat was false. The point is fly's eggs, not spontaneous generation causes maggots. Redi's experiment has nothing whatever to do with evolution and is usually used to illustrate basis scientific principles to high school students. Redi's experiment was never disproved, precisely because maggots actually do come from fly's eggs.

As so many others have suggested, you should definitely do a search on "Miller-Urey." This will put some real arrows in your quiver, so to speak. Then come back and we'll all talk again. Honestly, if you want to understand "big-science" like evolution, the best way is step by step. You can skip a lot that went on before 1950, but Miller-Urey can't be overlooked. It's fundamental.

Answer 3

Why do you have a problem with evolution unless you are a bibliolator who worships the bible. There is no where in the bible that says the bible is a hard science book. The conflict between science and bibliolators lies in the need of the bibliolator to take everything in the bible literally. A simple examination of biblical accounts shows that the bible is either allegorical or a lie. I prefer to believe it is allegorcial. For example Google "The epic of Gilgamesh" and you'll find the Babylonian account of a great flood which destroyed the world and a man who built a boat and took on animals". This account predates the Genisis author by over 1000 years. Further--if the world were covered by flood waters the water would be either salt or fresh--either the fresh water fish all dies or the salt water fish all die-or Noah also had aquariums the size of a sprerm whale lol--or this is an allegorical account of a gigantic tsunami resulting from a meteor imapct in the Indian ocean. You can embrace logic, reason, and science, and religion by simply realizing that the bible is not a document meant to be taken as hard science. If God is all knowing and all powerful--then to put the forces in motion which ultimately evolved into mankind is a bit more elegant than the Genesis account.

Answer 4

First, evolution is not about life from nonliving things, that's abiogenesis.

Second, Redi did not prove that living matter CAN'T come from nonliving.

He only proved what he showed... that meat doesn't turn into flies and a stick won't turn into a snake. that's it. he was disputing previous experiments.

An scientists will never say evolution has been proven over and over again. A scientific theory is an explanation based on significant amounts of data. But it can never be proved because it's an explanation. However, the experiments that it supports can be proven, and have been over and over again.

That's the beauty of science... scientists are very skeptical and will not allow other scientists to get away with poor science.

Answer 5

The Redi experiment which happened in the seventeenth century? Do you not think science might have moved on a bit since then?

What Redi disproved was spontaneous generation - the prevailing notion at the time that held that rotting meat automatically generated maggots, and so on - not abiogenesis. You can't prove that life could never develop independently with three bits of meat and some gauze.

Much more recently (1953), Miller and Urey proved that complex chemicals can come out of a simple chemical mixture without human intervention. They mixed up some basic chemicals and came out with organic compounds - the first step on the road to life.

Redi was right in that spontaneous generation does not occur. But his experiment does not in any way prove that 'living matter CAN'T come from nonliving matter'. And Miller and Urey showed that potentially, it can.

There's your proof. Look up the names on Wikipedia.

Answer 6

Redi didn't disprove evolution he disproved the theory of Spontaneous Generation not the theory of evolution. if you read the origin of species you would realize that it doesn't state that if you left a rock in a jar a maggot would magically appear. It states that animals gradually evolved to suit their environments as Darwin noticed in the Galapagos Islands. The origin of life isn't as certain although the current theory suggests that it was caused by increasingly complex. Prions the cause of BSE can be seen as examples. Non living material that can reproduce which is quite interesting. I hope you understand that evolution doesn't suggest that something came from nothing, that is waht creationists are saying.

Answer 7

Why are you so concerned with disproving evolution , instead of proving creation ? Apparently , you believe in creation. What did this "god" create living matter from ? Remenber , it can't be from non-living matter , so what did he use ?
Okay , so just where did "god" get the materials to make all of the universe ? The earth is only a speck of nothing in comparison to the entire universe .
You said that living matter can't come from non-living matter . Is "god" living matter ? Where did he come from ? And where's the evidence to back up your answer ?
Where did all the material for the universe come from , and how was it transported ? Your evidence ?
The only answer that you Holies have is " God is almighty. he can do anything ". You ask for exact proof for everything in evolution , but offer nothing to back up your superstitions .

Answer 8

Redi proved that maggots did not spontaneously arise from rotten meat all on their own. His experiments did not show that anything about it being impossible for life to come from non-living materials. His experiments pertained to maggots, not the basic elements of life such as amino-acids.

Amino-acids have been proven to form spontaneously in the type of materials that were likely to have existed on the Earth billions of years ago.

Check out info on the Miller-Urey experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

Answer 9

Please post a link to this proof. You're the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. If somebody proved that living matter cannot come from non-living matter (whatever that means) you should be able to show us this "proof", right?

Okay. Redi disproved the theory that maggots were spontaneously being generated from a dead fish. He didn't disprove abiogenisis in general. Viruses straddle the line between being alive or not. The idea that what we think of as life arose from that which we consider inanimate isn't so farfetched as you would like to believe.

Answer 10

i would like to see their proof too. they seem to be so convinced that evolution is what caused us all to exist...but i have yet to see solid evidence for that theory....yet they teach this theory to our children as if it is a fact...where are these transitional fossils, the missing link.... i wonder why it's missing. how can anyone take this as anything more than what it is....the theory of a man who couldn't accept god so he looked for whatever he could to disprove him, and many have jumped right onto his bandwagon. but for some reason, darwin himself said that when he was traveling, the only time he felt at peace was when he saw the steeple of a church because he knew that the people there would treat him with respect and give him lunch, instead of him being lunch. why did someone so hell bent on discrediting his creator, feel so at home with gods children. was he a little unsure himself of his own theory. i have never seen any other theory treated in this matter, nothing else is taught as fact when it isn't proven. animals can't and never will jump species. that is impossible...there is too much in this world and outside this world that points to a grand architect. why do so many just follow this so blindly, is it because their hearts are hardened and unless they are softened they will never see the truth and forever more will be lost in their little theories.