Doesn't macro-evolution violate the Law of biogenesis?

Question

The Law of Biogenesis simply states that Life only comes from life. Never has life been observed to come from non-life. There was a time when scientists believed in spontaneously generation but this was before the microscope. Since that time it was dis proven and hence this law of nature was discovered. But proponents of the hypothesis of macro-evolution ignore this law because the basis of this kind of evolution require life to have come from non-life. How can a theory stand when it violates this simplest of laws?

Answer 1

Because accepting the alternative means accepting that there was an intelligent creator and that there is a purpose to life on earth, not just random events. If there is no purpose, there are no resposiblities or consequences of actions.

Dispite what they say, there is NO concrete evidence that life has ever come from non life nor has one species come from another. Even leading evolutionist have said that spontanious generation is impossible, but they can't accept the idea of a creator, so they believe the lie so they don't have face GOD!

Answer 2

Once again, abiogenesis (or biogenesis) has nothing to do with evolution.



Yes, the rule of abiogenesis (or the law of biogenesis, whatever you want to call it) is perfectly valid. Your idea of macroevolution may not be, though.



Macroevolution depends on the people who define it. Macroevolution, according to most creationists, is any change in the population that occurs at or above the species level. Macroevolution, according to biologists, is the same thing as speciation. The biological definition actually fits within the creationist definition, but the creationists still refuse to accept any speciation (which has been documented numerous times) as possible ... in fact, most deny it has ever occurred.



Now, what do either of these have to do with the origin of life? Yes, that's right, nothing. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just a common misconception that anything evolution has anything to do with life origins. No part of the theory of evolution has ever made any claim to this (at least, not in my life time).



It is definitely important to ask such questions about origins, and I'm guessing it will become less and less a question as science investigates it. In fact, several different aspects of abiogenesis are being investigated right now. But as it stands now, no one can know for sure how the first organism came to be on this Earth--whether or not it was created or came about "by chance". But in no way does this invalidate the theory of evolution at all.

Answer 3

No - it doesn't.



As others have pointed out - your objection is to the hypothesis of Abiogenesis, which is the formation of life from non-life by non-biological processes.

Evolution *requires* life to be *pre-existing*: no life = no evolution. It describes how life changes (and has changed) over time, *not* how it began. And it makes no predictions about how that life began.

Conflating the two ideas together is a common creationist ploy, because you can make the well-supported, plausible, and well-understood ideas of evolution seem much less likely when you make them the same as the not well-supported, less plausible, and poorly-understood ideas of abiogenesis.



Now, unlike the theory of evolution, the hypotheses on abiogenesis are very scientifically contentious. There are several competing (and complementary) hypotheses, and none have yet achieved anything like universal acceptance within the scientific community. The "RNA world" hypothesis has probably come closest, but it still has many detractors.



That said - the "spontaneous generation" experiments by Pasteur are quite different from the hypotheses of abiogenesis. Pasteur demonstrated that organisms like maggots and mice do not just "appear" spontaneously. But the ideas behind abiogenesis do not look to form such complex organisms - they describe how much simpler "organisms" (like self-replicating strands of RNA) might form by chemical processes in the organic soup of pre-biotic earth.



Abiogenesis and evolution have *nothing* to do with each other!

Answer 4

no, but abiogenesis does.



you don't seem to know what these terms even mean, how can you argue against them?



"No mater how hard you try life can not be created from non-life in a lab let alone the harshness of nature."



why not? life is a chemical system, near as science can tell. so we'll see about that. your asserting that it's impossible doesn't make it so. true enough it hasn't been done yet (unless you consider viruses to be alive), but there's a first time for everything.



"We believe God is life so that would still not violate this law."



this is just too hilarious. does god have cells? DNA? do you also believe that god is outside space and time? if god is living it is living in a way that's totally different from every other living thing... how does that make sense to you?

Answer 5

Evolution does not actually address how life came to be.



However there is definitely life out of nonliving material.

Genetic researches have created living DNA from of the shelf lab chemicals and used it to create a new species of bacteria by inserting it into a bacteria with its DNA stripped out.

Another group in Italy expects to do it directly from just the DNA this year, letting the bacteria entirely build itself.

So life is possible from dead matter.

We are not talking about large organisms here though. Just relatively simple bacteria.



So I guess the idea of abiogenesis does not actually break any rules.

Answer 6

No, not at all. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.



Edit: "abiogenesis is a proposal by evolution" No it absolutely is not. Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution ONLY deals with life to life. It does NOT deal with the origin of life. You need to do your BASIC research over again and try learning this time.



As for it cannot happen, you might want to look up Miller Urey and the multiple times this experiment has been conducted and the multiple times it has succeeded even after finding out the original composition of the Earth was different than intially expected.



Edit again: "This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that life does not currently spontaneously arise in nature in its present forms from non-life."



You might want to look at the world currently. Your god would have had to come from somewhere, so where would that be? It utterly amazes me how people don't bother to think things through.

Answer 7

Evolution means the change in allele frequency in a population over time.



Proponents of evolution know that that is the definition of the theory and that it is only creationists who have decided that it means something else and that there is two categories called micro and macro. They call it macro since they can't disprove micro (see any drug resistant disease) so that they can say "See the monkeys" and pretend that that is what real scientists mean.



I'd also like to see your sources on any "Law of Biogenesis" that hasn't been disproven.



"The theory formulated by E.H. Haeckel that individuals in their embryonic development pass through stages similar in general structural plan to the stages their species passed through in its evolution; more technically phrased, the theory that ontogeny is an abbreviated recapitulation of phylogeny. The theory has been discredited in the light of the modern science of genetics. Even at the time, there was much reason to doubt its validity. Especially as Haeckel himself was ordered to appear before a university court in Jena were he was accused of faking the evidence for recapitulation. He finally admitted that his evidence had been 'doctored'."



In 1864, louis pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of neat experiments, pasteur demonstrated that life today did not arise in areas that had not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex ovo, latin for "all life [is] from eggs". thus dr. Louis pasteur finally overcame the longstanding belief in spontaneous generation of life.



It is worth noting that louis Pasteur's research dealt with what can be observed to happen in the present day and says nothing about what may have happened on earth in the past. Indeed, both advocates of evolution and advocates of creationism both endorse abiogenesis as the means by which life began on earth, the latter group simply claiming that god did it. young earth creationists even go so far as to claim that fully grown creatures were created in their present form some six to ten thousand years ago, an idea which would seem to be completely discredited by Pasteur's research.



Edit:

Too bad you didn't read it. You are misquoting both theories that you mention, and your ignorance at this point can only be purposeful since the opportunity to educate yourself is right in front of you. Law of Biogenesis states NOTHING about what happened in the past and neither does the TOE.

Answer 8

Look up 'abiogenesis', which is completely separate from evolution, btw.



Edit: I suppose you really don't want to learn. If you had, then you would've asked this in the Science section instead of religion. Ignorance is a condition that can be corrected, but willful ignorance in order to bolster your closely held beliefs is pathetic.

Answer 9

I think you mean ' Abiogenesis ', macro-evolution is just bigger micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution isn't the origin of life just the change from species to species.

Abiogenesis is the idea that life came from non-life.

Answer 10

Law of Biogenesis must be wrong. When where, and by who was it published? Is there newer work that superceeds it?



Obviously, if the Law of Biogenesis were true as you state it, life would have to have always existed, loop throught time over and over, or not exist now. That also rules out a creation event, so I doubt you accept the Law of Biogenesis anyway, right?

Answer 11

A lack of observation of a phenomenon does not prove it has never occurred.



Personally I find it more logical that life has always existed than for life or non-life (e.g., matter) to suddenly pop into existence.

Answer 12

You're misunderstanding macro-evolution. In ALL of evolution, life comes from life.



If you're talking about the *origins of life*, that's a different issue. Evolution addresses new species evolving from older species, not the continual arising of new species out of nothing.

Answer 13

Here's what you need to do: Take a small rocky planet in the habitable zone of the solar system with a generous supply of water and atmosphere, continuously disturbed by plate tectonics, leave for 4.5 billion years and see if life will arise.



Oh, wait... :-)

Answer 14

No.



Macroevolution is not an entity. It is the study of evolution over large time scales.



Evolution is the process of new variants of life deriving from older, existing life.

Answer 15

Not really, when you consider that amino acids have been found on meteorites.

Answer 16

Uh..yeah, you are completely clueless. Because it sounds to me like you are implying that in macor-evolution, the speciation event occurs from a non-living object, and not from mutation.

Answer 17

listen theres no such thing as micro or macro evolution , its just evolution , so dont waste your time on nonsense

Answer 18

Yeah-good job.

Answer 19

Just because something hasn't been observed, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.



Nice try.

Answer 20

Well, evolution violates every law there is, genetics, cell re-production, etc.

Answer 21

It only had to happen once.

Answer 22

GOOD JOB