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.
Sorry, you are the only one playing semantic games by conflating 1800s "spontaneous generation" with current ideas on abiogenisis.
They are not the same in any way.
Beginning here: "spontaneous" cannot be said of any process taking **billions** of years.
JohnnyBoy: "I spent a year reading up on the subject when I was younger and there’s been nothing new of note since the 70s."
A good many working scientists would beg to differ, and I agree with them.
The entire scientific worldview is very different from 1970.
Again, I recommend the article linked in my post #100 above.
Please read it and then tell me you knew all that in 1970!