Skip to comments.The story behind Darwin's warm little pond
Posted on 11/07/2009 6:08:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Sooner or later, students of abiogenesis will encounter Darwin's 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker with his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life. He was returning some pamphlets which triggered the reaction: "I am always delighted to see a word in favour of Pangenesis, which some day, I believe, will have a resurrection." The next paragraph has his "big if" dream: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
Hard to believe the world was completely hoodwinked in less than a hundred years.
shoot, with global warming, it was less than 20. Maybe 50, if you include the whole "ecology" indoctrination.
I don’t want to discuss it on this thread, but don’t forget about what’s on my profile page!
whoa. here I was thinking it was a plague.
“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”
“In the absence of any real corroborative evidence, it is impossible to guess what Darwin thought about the nature of the first living beings. In any case, Darwin's remarks should not be read to imply that he was thinking in terms of prebiotic chemistry, but rather that he recognized that the chemical gap separating organisms from the non-living was not insurmountable.”
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” (Source on page 490 here)
(Ah, the CREATOR! Oh, NO!!!!)
“[to Hooker] But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. - It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter.”
[to the Athenaeum] “Now is there a fact, or a shadow of a fact, supporting the belief that these elements, without the presence of any organic compounds, and acted on only by known forces, could produce a living creature? At present it is to us a result absolutely inconceivable. Your reviewer sneers with justice at my use of the “Pentateuchal terms”, “of one primordial form into which life was first breathed”: in a purely scientific work I ought perhaps not to have used such terms; but they well serve to confess that our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin of force or matter.”
“As for myself I cannot believe in spontaneous generation & though I expect that at some future time the principle of life will be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me beyond the confines of science.” (Letter 5282, 1866)
“I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favour of the so-called Spontaneous generation. I believe that I have somewhere said (but cannot find the passage) that the principle of continuity renders it probable that the principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence of some general law; but this is only conjecture and not science.” (Letter to Wallich, 1882)
“The intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable.” (2nd Notebook, 1837)
“Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity. [. . .] If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature.” (Letter 13711, 1882)
“Indeed, a careful examination and critical reading of his public and private writings shows that what appear to be contradictory opinions on the problem of the emergence of life are the result of texts read out of context, sometimes maliciously, as shown by some publications of creationist groups and advocates of the so-called intelligent design.”
“Nor should we be misled by a sop Darwin attached to later editions of his Origin of Species. The first edition ended with the famous flourish: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one [. . .]” To smooth ruffled feathers, later editions read: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one [. . .]” Some are fooled by this sop even to this day. But what did Darwin himself say about this little addition? “I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used [a] Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.”” (Wiker, B. 2009)
As a final thought, Darwin was intellectually honest enough to see the difference between his philosophical materialism (which demanded some form of spontaneous generation) and empirical science (which gave no support for it).
Unfortunately, today's “scientist” still churns out propaganda as truth and the sheeple have made it into a RELIGION.
Hard to believe the world was completely hoodwinked in less than a hundred years.
shoot, with global warming, it was less than 20. Maybe 50, if you include the whole “ecology” indoctrination.
Many on FR are hooked on this garbage.
They’ll believe whatever they are told.
Oh my !
Did you see he even had a PHd?
November 6, 2009 | David Tyler, Ph.D.
Gee, educated people can disagree with the LEFTISTS.
Life didn’t spring from spontaneous generation. Like Topsy, it just sort of growed.
Thanks for the high lights.
I'm glad to learn that Darwin was at least an honest enough materialist to recognize that materialism is not supported by science.
“Hard to believe the world was completely hoodwinked in less than a hundred years.
shoot, with global warming, it was less than 20. Maybe 50, if you include the whole “ecology” indoctrination.”
Don’t forget the link between HIV and AIDS, heliocentrism and continental drift.
You can’t believe anything “scientists” tell us these days.
Since you brought it up, another subject that you are on the lunatic fringe of.
If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, then why not get injected with it?
Welcome to FR n00b. I went through your brief posting history, and what did I find? You champion Republican turncoats like Arlen Specter and Scozzafava, you call conservatives “stupid”, and you called Sarah Palin a “moron.” Did you perchance join this forum to insult conservatives?
This has been pointed out to you numerous times, The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life.
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
Why do you continue to post these dishonest assertions after being corrected numerous times, did God give you an exemption from Exodus 20:16?
After joining the Department of Clothing Design and Technology at Manchester Metropolitan University, he has pursued a number of research interests related to responsive manufacturing and systems modelling. Earlier work was concerned with flow line systems and management strategies to optimise performance. Research interests over the past decade relate to teamworking in new product development and its relation to operational practices, and the optimisation of performance of textile/apparel supply chains. Since March 2000, he has managed the North West Advanced Apparel Systems Centre, a European-funded initiative to support clothing and textile companies in NW England.
Ah. So you're an HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS nutter. Not surprising. People rarely embrace only one pseudoscience. I don't recall all the instances off the top of my head but, I've noticed in passing at various times that most FR antievolutionists believe firmly in some other variety of lunacy. For instance just the other day I noticed that one of you guys (although I don't remember who) is promoting chiropractic on their homepage. IIRC we also have believers in Atlantis, UFOs and psychic powers.
And editor-surveyor believes the sun goes around the earth.
Yes, look how many groupies GGG has.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.