A simple experiement demonstrating spontaneous generation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Paramecia which can survive dry spells in a cyst tend to have more descendants than Paramecia which cannot survive a dry spell. The mechanistic process you are looking for is called “Natural Selection”.
Click to expand...
It does not explain the existence of purposeful living organisms. Blind selection is also an inadequate explanation of the development of rational persons from impersonal particles…
 
tonyrey said:
It does not explain the existence of purposeful living organisms. Blind selection is also an inadequate explanation of the development of rational persons from impersonal particles…
Click to expand...
We cannot discuss evolution here currently. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with you, and that the theory of evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. You should be proud of a God who could devise such a subtle and impressive way of getting His creation to assemble itself. Real self-assembly; no Allen keys required.

rossum
 
Robert_Sock said:
No, I did not disinfect the surface of the seed in fear that I might ruin it (it needs to sprout roots in order for the experiment to work). I also did not have my jar covered to prevent airborne cysts from drifting in.
Click to expand...
Then you cannot show that your Paramecia did not just come in on the seed of drift in on the wind. They live in puddles and are well adapted to finding a new puddle when their current puddle dries up. You experiment was just another puddle to them.
What would be useful is time-lapsed photography to see if the Paramecium are evolving from the bacteria.
Click to expand...
That would certainly help. It is good that you are testing things by experiment, and thinking of ways to improve your experiment. I suggest looking at least at covering your experiment to prevent windblown intrusions.
It’s just that I do not trust science. The theory of evolution, for example, I feel is a scam.
Click to expand...
Your feeling are irrelevant. Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. Once you have perfected your experiment, you will have some scientific data to show. Just be prepared for the fact that the result of your experiment may not be what you hoped it would be.

rossum
 
rossum said:
We cannot discuss evolution here currently. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with you, and that the theory of evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. You should be proud of a God who could devise such a subtle and impressive way of getting His creation to assemble itself. Real self-assembly; no Allen keys required.

rossum
Click to expand...
God is not a blind Watchmaker but a loving Father! He certainly doesn’t leave everything to Chance and just hope for the best… 😉
 
You have not demonstrated spontaneous generation, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand biology.
 
tonyrey said:
God is not a blind Watchmaker but a loving Father! He certainly doesn’t leave everything to Chance and just hope for the best… 😉
Click to expand...
If you actually look at what evolution and astronomy show, they are every bit as delicate and beautiful as anything psuedo-sciences like creationism and intelligent design could ever come up with. I prefer to accept the very strong evidence for evolution and not have to answer the question of why our loving Father would create a worm whose life cycle depends on eating away the back of a child’s eyes, for example.

I for one, cannot understand why my fellow Catholics don’t all see this as a great answer to the problems of natural sufferings. I would be very interested to hear your answer, if you do not accept evolution and think that God designed everything, why design a creature that must cause terrible suffering to live?
 
John21652 said:
Robert, please read this article and you will understand the concepts and better understand why your experiment can not be used to ‘prove’ spontaneous generation…
Click to expand...
I fail to comprehend how this article addresses my experiment with Paramecium. Paramecium do not float around in the air. If they are in a cyst, as suggested by another poster, I would suspect they would fall to the ground due to gravity. Why doesn’t the article have an experiment with Paramecium? To test the notion of spontaneous generation, this Paramecium experiment should be tested and explained by “experts.” Just because the “maggot” and “microbe” failed the test does not mean that the Paramecium experiment would also fail.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I fail to comprehend how this article addresses my experiment with Paramecium. Paramecium do not float around in the air. If they are in a cyst, as suggested by another poster, I would suspect they would fall to the ground due to gravity.
Click to expand...
You need to study the effect of air pressure, viscosity and surface tension on very very small objects. How far can dust or sand be carried on a strong wind? A sand grain is bigger than a Paramecium. What is common sense at ordinary scales does not always work at much smaller scales.
Why doesn’t the article have an experiment with Paramecium? To test the notion of spontaneous generation, this Paramecium experiment should be tested and explained by “experts.” Just because the “maggot” and “microbe” failed the test does not mean that the Paramecium experiment would also fail.
Click to expand...
You have not shown that Paramecium spores didn’t make their way into your experiment by ordinary means.

rossum
 
Robert_Sock said:
I fail to comprehend how this article addresses my experiment with Paramecium. Paramecium do not float around in the air. If they are in a cyst, as suggested by another poster, I would suspect they would fall to the ground due to gravity. Why doesn’t the article have an experiment with Paramecium? To test the notion of spontaneous generation, this Paramecium experiment should be tested and explained by “experts.” Just because the “maggot” and “microbe” failed the test does not mean that the Paramecium experiment would also fail.
Click to expand...
How big is a paramecium? How much bigger or smaller is it than the dust that gets blown around by the wind and can stay suspended in the air for minutes or hours?

Your experiment fails to demonstrate what you claim, because it did not account for all of the potential souces of the paramecium.
 
davidv said:
How big is a paramecium? How much bigger or smaller is it than the dust that gets blown around by the wind and can stay suspended in the air for minutes or hours?

Your experiment fails to demonstrate what you claim, because it did not account for all of the potential souces of the paramecium.
Click to expand...
Paramecium cannot live in the air unless perhaps they are in a cyst.

If I failed to control for everything it’s because I’m not a biological researcher. I think what I did do raises enough red flags that true experts in the field should investigate and explain my results the way they did other spontaneous generation experiments that had failed.

To disprove two or three spontaneous generation experiments and then say that spontaneous generation does not exist is not good enough.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Paramecium cannot live in the air unless perhaps they are in a cyst.

If I failed to control for everything it’s because I’m not a biological researcher. I think what I did do raises enough red flags that true experts in the field should investigate and explain my results the way they did other spontaneous generation experiments that had failed.

To disprove two or three spontaneous generation experiments and then say that spontaneous generation does not exist is not good enough.
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to prove spontaeous generation?
 
If you’re convinced that purported scientific truth is in many cases a scam, why would you trust experts to repeat your experiment? Would you actually believe them if they came up with different results?

You have been advised of ways in which your experimental design did not eliminate the possibility of encysted paramecia entering your container by ordinary means. I would suggest repeating the experiment yourself and controlling for those factors. It is likely you will not get the same result. If you do, then there might be something to talk about.

In general, if you believe you have obtained a shocking result through a simple experiment at home, how likely is it that no one else would have come across this result in the centuries since Pasteur?
 
Usagi said:
In general, if you believe you have obtained a shocking result through a simple experiment at home, how likely is it that no one else would have come across this result in the centuries since Pasteur?
Click to expand...
Given they’re “scientists,” I believe it’s something they take for granted.

At the very least, it should get investigated and placed along with the other “spontaneous generation experiments” in text books.
 
starsmurf said:
If you actually look at what evolution and astronomy show, they are every bit as delicate and beautiful as anything psuedo-sciences like creationism and intelligent design could ever come up with. I prefer to accept the very strong evidence for evolution and not have to answer the question of why our loving Father would create a worm whose life cycle depends on eating away the back of a child’s eyes, for example.

I for one, cannot understand why my fellow Catholics don’t all see this as a great answer to the problems of natural sufferings. I would be very interested to hear your answer, if you do not accept evolution and think that God designed everything, why design a creature that must cause terrible suffering to live?
Click to expand...
I accept evolution and I do **not **believe God designed every detail of life on earth. Even the archsceptic David Hume conceded that some evil is inevitable in a world subject to the laws of nature rather than governed by “particular volitions of the deity”. John Calvin was mistaken in thinking not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God because He would be a monster directly responsible for the worm in the eye!

Within the framework of Design there is an element of chance which is evident in all the accidents, diseases, deaths, disasters and deformities caused by unfortunate coincidences. It is absurd to believe that in such a vast, immensely complex system everything can go exactly according to plan without “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to…”
 
rossum said:
We cannot discuss evolution here currently. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with you, and that the theory of evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. You should be proud of a God who could devise such a subtle and impressive way of getting His creation to assemble itself. Real self-assembly; no Allen keys required.

rossum
Click to expand...
Rossum

I think I’m going to print this post off and hand it out to people. If there was a “post of the month” competition on this forum, I’d enter this. 👍 👍 :bowdown2: :bowdown2:

As a religious scientist, I have to say that this is a prime example of how religious people should feel about the science of evolution.

starsmurf
 
Robert_Sock said:
Given they’re “scientists,” I believe it’s something they take for granted.

At the very least, it should get investigated and placed along with the other “spontaneous generation experiments” in text books.
Click to expand...
Scientists do not take anything for granted. Some of the most famous experiments in history were done to investigate something and found that the thing they were investigating was wrong on didn’t exist (eg the luminferous ether). If a scientist had done an experiment that resulted in spontaneous generation, it would have been reported and investigated. Science isn’t some giant conspiracy theory. If I was really part of all the consipracy theories I’m supposed to be, I’d be earning a heck of a lot more than what I do. A scientist could not not write up the results of an experiment that had showed spontaneous generation as science runs on a system that requires you to publish your results. If he or she did not, they would lose future funding and probably their job.

Pastuer was a deeply religious man, a good Catholic. He was also an excellent scientist.
He did all sorts of experiments along the lines described here, but he did not get the results this person did. Given that Pastuer performed the experiments properly and this OP, by their own admission, did not, the conclusion is that Pastuer is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top