If you'd read the section on "spontaneous generation" you'd see that it was disproved by Pasteur in the 1800s.
Nobody since has tried to resurrect the old spontaneous generation hypothesis.
I recommend you take an hour or two to read that entire article on origins of life, plus some of its links.
Then go on to the article I recommended in post #100 above on abiogenisis.
I promise you'll learn something about real science you didn't previously know.
Then you'll be ready to put alleged "spontaneous generation" in its historical context and differentiate it from today's ideas on abiogenisis.
Archebiosis is the same thing as Spontaneous Generation. Don’t try to confuse the issue by playing semantic games.
>In the years following Louis Pasteur’s experiment in 1862, the term “spontaneous generation” fell into increasing disfavor. Experimentalists used a variety of terms for the study of the origin of life from non-living materials. Heterogenesis was applied to once-living materials such as boiled broths, and Henry Charlton Bastian proposed the term archebiosis for life originating from inorganic materials. The two were lumped together as “spontaneous generation”, but disliking the term as sounding too random, Bastian proposed biogenesis. In an 1870 address titled, “Spontaneous Generation”, Thomas Henry Huxley defined biogenesis as life originating from other life and coined the negative of the term, abiogenesis, which was the term that became dominant.[10]
>I recommend you take an hour or two to read that entire article on origins of life, plus some of its links.
I spent a year reading up on the subject when I was younger and there’s been nothing new of note since the 70s. At this point, most biologists have to reach for life was invented in the heart of starts and seeded on earth because everything testable has failed during lab testing. Or they get upset and refuse to talk about it.