Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
Shalom.
"Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
"
Not exactly. It proved that it wasn't the cause of putrefaction. It in no way proved that abiogenesis cannot happen. It only proved that it didn't happen under the conditions of his experiments.
I have to quit for the day, so I can't continue this interesting discussion.
Perhaps we'll pick it up in another thread. Do, though, run those Google searches. There are some interesting articles, and not all of them are on the evolutionary side. They're worth reading.
Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
Yeah, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Couldn't create life. If they could have improved on the faltering results of Miller-Urey, they would have.
We've had decades. Don't you think they would have, if they could have? ;)
(Ever notice how quiet they are about the lack of progress on this front? We can't create long strands--there's a natural limitation to the length of strand we can create.)
Sauron
Does anyone know where to look and what to look for? Also, newly-emerging proto life would most likely be eaten by bacteria.
Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
That is quite absurd. Pasteur showed that bacteria, molds, etc, don't form in chicken broth, milk, etc, under sterile conditions. He showed absolutely nothing about, say, sea water circulating thorough volcanic "chimneys" with pyrite surface chemistry.