Revision as of 15:43, 25 February 2002 editConversion script (talk | contribs)10 editsm Automated conversion← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:42, 7 September 2002 edit undo-- April (talk | contribs)3,263 edits First major revision of articleNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Abiogenesis''', in its most general sense, is the generation of life from non-living matter. The term is primarily used in the context of ] and the ]. | |||
Important note: the modern definition of abiogenesis includes the formation of the first life forms from primordial chemicals, a significantly different thing from the original hypothesis of ongoing abiogenesis in Earth's current environment. The text below does not cover this material in any great detail, and is hopelessly out of date where it attempts to. | |||
Some confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis were later proven to be incorrect. These early concepts (referred to here as "Aristolian abiogenesis" for clarity) held that living organisms could be "born" out of decaying organic substances, et cetera, which we now know does not occur. | |||
see, for example, ], ], ] | |||
The ''modern'' definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristolian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms. Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate; see, for example, ], ], ]. | |||
''From an old 1911 Encyclopedia '' | |||
=== History of Abiogenisis Hypotheses === | |||
⚫ | ''' |
||
''This section was originally from a 1911 Encyclopedia and requires much more revision'' | |||
⚫ | ''Aristolian abiogenesis'', also known as ''spontaneous generation,'' (and, in older texts, Generatio acquivoca, Generatio primaria, archegenesis and archebiosis), was the theory according to which fully formed living organisms sometimes arise from not-living matter. ] explicitly taught this form abiogenesis, and laid it down as an observed fact that some animals spring from putrid matter, that plant lice arise from the dew which falls on plants, that fleas are developed from putrid matter, and so forth. Alexander Ross, in commenting on Sir Thomas Browne's doubt as to "whether mice may be bred by putrefaction," gives a clear statement of the common opinion on abiogenesis held until about two centuries ago. Ross wrote: | ||
⚫ | The first step in the scientific refutation of the theory of abiogenesis was taken by the ] Redi, who, in ], proved that no maggots were ''bred'' in meat on which flies were prevented by wire screens from laying their eggs. From the ] onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, abiogenesis did not occur, but that ''omne vivum e vivo'', every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing. | ||
:"So may he (Sir Thomas Browne) doubt whether in cheese and timber worms are generated; or if beetles and wasps in cows' dung; or if butterflies, locusts, grasshoppers, shell-fish, snails, eels, and such like, be procreated of putrefied matter, which is apt to receive the form of that creature to which it is by formative power disposed. To question this is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to ], and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants." | |||
⚫ | The first step in the scientific refutation of the theory of Aristolian abiogenesis was taken by the ] Redi, who, in ], proved that no maggots were ''bred'' in meat on which flies were prevented by wire screens from laying their eggs. From the ] onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, abiogenesis did not occur, but that ''omne vivum e vivo'', every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing. | ||
The discovery of the microscope carried the refutation further. In ] ] discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was invariably accompanied by the appearance of myriads of bacteria and other low organisms. As knowledge of microscopic forms of life increased, so the apparent possibilities of abiogenesis increased, and it became a tempting hypothesis that whilst the higher forms of life arose only by generation from their kind, there was a perpetual abiogenetic fount by which the first steps in the evolution of living organisms continued to arise, under suitable conditions, from inorganic matter. It was due chiefly to L. Pasteur that the occurrence of abiogenesis in the microscopic world was disproved as much as its occurrence in the macroscopic world. If organic matter were first sterilized and then prevented from contamination from without, putrefaction did not occur, and the matter remained free from microbes. The nature of sterilization, and the difficulties in securing it, as well as the extreme delicacy of the manipulations necessary, made it possible for a very long time to be doubtful as to the application of the phrase ''omne vivum e vivo'' to the microscopic world, and there still remain a few belated supporters of abiogenesis. Subjection to the temperature of boiling water for, say, half an hour seemed an efficient mode of sterilization, until it was discovered that the spores of bacteria are so involved in heat-resisting membranes, that only prolonged exposure to dry, baking heat can be recognized as an efficient process of sterilization. Moreover, the presence of bacteria, or their spores, is so universal that only extreme precautions guard against a re-infection of the sterilized material. It may now be stated definitely that all known living organisms arise only from pre-existing living organisms. | The discovery of the microscope carried the refutation further. In ] ] discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was invariably accompanied by the appearance of myriads of bacteria and other low organisms. As knowledge of microscopic forms of life increased, so the apparent possibilities of abiogenesis increased, and it became a tempting hypothesis that whilst the higher forms of life arose only by generation from their kind, there was a perpetual abiogenetic fount by which the first steps in the evolution of living organisms continued to arise, under suitable conditions, from inorganic matter. It was due chiefly to L. Pasteur that the occurrence of abiogenesis in the microscopic world was disproved as much as its occurrence in the macroscopic world. If organic matter were first sterilized and then prevented from contamination from without, putrefaction did not occur, and the matter remained free from microbes. The nature of sterilization, and the difficulties in securing it, as well as the extreme delicacy of the manipulations necessary, made it possible for a very long time to be doubtful as to the application of the phrase ''omne vivum e vivo'' to the microscopic world, and there still remain a few belated supporters of abiogenesis. Subjection to the temperature of boiling water for, say, half an hour seemed an efficient mode of sterilization, until it was discovered that the spores of bacteria are so involved in heat-resisting membranes, that only prolonged exposure to dry, baking heat can be recognized as an efficient process of sterilization. Moreover, the presence of bacteria, or their spores, is so universal that only extreme precautions guard against a re-infection of the sterilized material. It may now be stated definitely that all known living organisms arise only from pre-existing living organisms. | ||
So far the theory of abiogenesis may be taken as disproved. It must be noted, however, that this disproof relates only to known existing organisms. All these are composed of a definite substance, known as protoplasm (q.v.), and the modern refutation of abiogenesis applies only to the organic forms in which protoplasm now exists. It may be that in the progress of science it may yet become possible to construct living protoplasm from non-living material. The refutation of abiogenesis has no further bearing on this possibility than to make it probable that if protoplasm ultimately be formed in the laboratory, it will be by a series of stages, the earlier steps being the formation of some substance, or substances, now unknown, which are not protoplasm. Such intermediate stages may have existed in the past, and the modern refutation of abiogenesis has no application to the possibility of these having been formed from inorganic matter at some past time. Perhaps the words archebiosis, or archegenesis, should be reserved for the theory that protoplasm in the remote past has been developed from not-living matter by a series of steps, and many of those, notably ], who took a large share in the process of refuting contemporary abiogenesis, have stated their belief in a primordial archebiosis. | So far the theory of abiogenesis may be taken as disproved. It must be noted, however, that this disproof relates only to known existing organisms. All these are composed of a definite substance, known as protoplasm (q.v.), and the modern refutation of abiogenesis applies only to the organic forms in which protoplasm now exists. It may be that in the progress of science it may yet become possible to construct living protoplasm from non-living material. The refutation of abiogenesis has no further bearing on this possibility than to make it probable that if protoplasm ultimately be formed in the laboratory, it will be by a series of stages, the earlier steps being the formation of some substance, or substances, now unknown, which are not protoplasm. Such intermediate stages may have existed in the past, and the modern refutation of abiogenesis has no application to the possibility of these having been formed from inorganic matter at some past time. Perhaps the words archebiosis, or archegenesis, should be reserved for the theory that protoplasm in the remote past has been developed from not-living matter by a series of steps, and many of those, notably ], who took a large share in the process of refuting contemporary abiogenesis, have stated their belief in a primordial archebiosis. | ||
=== Modern concepts of abiogenesis === |
Revision as of 03:42, 7 September 2002
Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the generation of life from non-living matter. The term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origins of life.
Some confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis were later proven to be incorrect. These early concepts (referred to here as "Aristolian abiogenesis" for clarity) held that living organisms could be "born" out of decaying organic substances, et cetera, which we now know does not occur.
The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristolian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms. Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate; see, for example, RNA world hypothesis, chemical evolution, proteinoid.
History of Abiogenisis Hypotheses
This section was originally from a 1911 Encyclopedia and requires much more revision
Aristolian abiogenesis, also known as spontaneous generation, (and, in older texts, Generatio acquivoca, Generatio primaria, archegenesis and archebiosis), was the theory according to which fully formed living organisms sometimes arise from not-living matter. Aristotle explicitly taught this form abiogenesis, and laid it down as an observed fact that some animals spring from putrid matter, that plant lice arise from the dew which falls on plants, that fleas are developed from putrid matter, and so forth. Alexander Ross, in commenting on Sir Thomas Browne's doubt as to "whether mice may be bred by putrefaction," gives a clear statement of the common opinion on abiogenesis held until about two centuries ago. Ross wrote:
- "So may he (Sir Thomas Browne) doubt whether in cheese and timber worms are generated; or if beetles and wasps in cows' dung; or if butterflies, locusts, grasshoppers, shell-fish, snails, eels, and such like, be procreated of putrefied matter, which is apt to receive the form of that creature to which it is by formative power disposed. To question this is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."
The first step in the scientific refutation of the theory of Aristolian abiogenesis was taken by the Italian Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots were bred in meat on which flies were prevented by wire screens from laying their eggs. From the 17th century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, abiogenesis did not occur, but that omne vivum e vivo, every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing.
The discovery of the microscope carried the refutation further. In 1683 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was invariably accompanied by the appearance of myriads of bacteria and other low organisms. As knowledge of microscopic forms of life increased, so the apparent possibilities of abiogenesis increased, and it became a tempting hypothesis that whilst the higher forms of life arose only by generation from their kind, there was a perpetual abiogenetic fount by which the first steps in the evolution of living organisms continued to arise, under suitable conditions, from inorganic matter. It was due chiefly to L. Pasteur that the occurrence of abiogenesis in the microscopic world was disproved as much as its occurrence in the macroscopic world. If organic matter were first sterilized and then prevented from contamination from without, putrefaction did not occur, and the matter remained free from microbes. The nature of sterilization, and the difficulties in securing it, as well as the extreme delicacy of the manipulations necessary, made it possible for a very long time to be doubtful as to the application of the phrase omne vivum e vivo to the microscopic world, and there still remain a few belated supporters of abiogenesis. Subjection to the temperature of boiling water for, say, half an hour seemed an efficient mode of sterilization, until it was discovered that the spores of bacteria are so involved in heat-resisting membranes, that only prolonged exposure to dry, baking heat can be recognized as an efficient process of sterilization. Moreover, the presence of bacteria, or their spores, is so universal that only extreme precautions guard against a re-infection of the sterilized material. It may now be stated definitely that all known living organisms arise only from pre-existing living organisms.
So far the theory of abiogenesis may be taken as disproved. It must be noted, however, that this disproof relates only to known existing organisms. All these are composed of a definite substance, known as protoplasm (q.v.), and the modern refutation of abiogenesis applies only to the organic forms in which protoplasm now exists. It may be that in the progress of science it may yet become possible to construct living protoplasm from non-living material. The refutation of abiogenesis has no further bearing on this possibility than to make it probable that if protoplasm ultimately be formed in the laboratory, it will be by a series of stages, the earlier steps being the formation of some substance, or substances, now unknown, which are not protoplasm. Such intermediate stages may have existed in the past, and the modern refutation of abiogenesis has no application to the possibility of these having been formed from inorganic matter at some past time. Perhaps the words archebiosis, or archegenesis, should be reserved for the theory that protoplasm in the remote past has been developed from not-living matter by a series of steps, and many of those, notably T. H. Huxley, who took a large share in the process of refuting contemporary abiogenesis, have stated their belief in a primordial archebiosis.