Changes

Abiogenesis relates to so called [[spontaneous generation]], an archaic theory that stated that life could appear spontaneously under particular conditions. For example, pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in dark areas were thought to produce mice, because mice appeared in the food after several weeks. This theory was finally put to rest by experiments by [[Louis Pasteur]]. In his historical address delivered at the "Sorbonne Scientific Soirée" on April 7, 1864, he criticized this theory i.a. by tracing its roots at least back to celebrated alchemical physician Van Helmont who lived in the seventeenth century.<ref>{{cite web |title=On Spontaneous Generation: An address delivered by Louis Pasteur at the "Sorbonne Scientific Soirée" of April 7, 1864 |author=Alexander Levine    

Abiogenesis relates to so called [[spontaneous generation]], an archaic theory that stated that life could appear spontaneously under particular conditions. For example, pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in dark areas were thought to produce mice, because mice appeared in the food after several weeks. This theory was finally put to rest by experiments by [[Louis Pasteur]]. In his historical address delivered at the "Sorbonne Scientific Soirée" on April 7, 1864, he criticized this theory i.a. by tracing its roots at least back to celebrated alchemical physician Van Helmont who lived in the seventeenth century.<ref>{{cite web |title=On Spontaneous Generation: An address delivered by Louis Pasteur at the "Sorbonne Scientific Soirée" of April 7, 1864 |author=Alexander Levine    

|date=17 November 2011|url=http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/Articles/spontaneous-generation/on-spontaneous-generation.html}}</ref> Pasteur exposed declarations made by Van Helmont stating that ''When water from the purest spring is placed in a flask steeped in leavening fumes, it putrefies, engendering maggots. The fumes which rise from the bottom of a swamp produce frogs, ants, leeches, and vegetation... Carve an indentation in a brick, fill it with crushed basil, and cover the brick with another, so that the indentation is completely sealed. Expose the two bricks to sunlight, and you will find that within a few days, fumes from the basil, acting as a leavening agent, will have transformed the vegetable matter into veritable scorpions.'' He also affirmed having conducted the [[experiment]] described as: ''If a soiled shirt is placed in the opening of a vessel containing grains of wheat, the reaction of the leaven in the shirt with fumes from the wheat will, after approximately twenty-one days, transform the wheat into mice'' and added that the resulting mice are adults, male and female, and that they may continue to reproduce their [[species]] by copulation. Pasteur ironically commented that "though it is easy enough to conduct experiments, it is far from easy to conduct ''irreproachable'' ones" and finally concluded that experiments of the sort adduced, in the seventeenth century, in favor of the doctrine of spontaneous generation, are absurd even if they would be defended by famous names like [[Epicurus]], [[Aristotle]], or Van Helmont himself. Although Pasteur believed the doctrine of spontaneous generation, previously fueled i.a. by earlier [[Kant]]'s philosophical [[metaphysical]] dogmas{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Kant#Philosopher_of_Protestantism_vs._of_Evolutionary_thought|Kant: Philosopher of Protestantism vs. of Evolutionary thought: ]]|group=note}} as well as by Pasteur's contemporaries Pouchet, Musset, Joly and Buffon, will never recover from the mortal blow inflicted by his [[experimental science|experiments]], a group of evolutionists, who needed to camouflage their adherence to failed hypothesis, rebranded and modified original theory under the new name of so called [[chemical evolution]]. Yet, in effort to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life, most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’.<ref>{{cite web |title=Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis |author= Jerry Bergman |publisher=CMI |url=http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis |quote=Abiogenesis was once commonly called ‘chemical evolution’, but evolutionists today try to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life. This is one reason that most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’. Chemical evolution is actually part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’.}}</ref>

|date=17 November 2011|url=http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/Articles/spontaneous-generation/on-spontaneous-generation.html}}</ref> Pasteur exposed declarations made by Van Helmont stating that ''When water from the purest spring is placed in a flask steeped in leavening fumes, it putrefies, engendering maggots. The fumes which rise from the bottom of a swamp produce frogs, ants, leeches, and vegetation... Carve an indentation in a brick, fill it with crushed basil, and cover the brick with another, so that the indentation is completely sealed. Expose the two bricks to sunlight, and you will find that within a few days, fumes from the basil, acting as a leavening agent, will have transformed the vegetable matter into veritable scorpions.'' He also affirmed having conducted the [[experiment]] described as: ''If a soiled shirt is placed in the opening of a vessel containing grains of wheat, the reaction of the leaven in the shirt with fumes from the wheat will, after approximately twenty-one days, transform the wheat into mice'' and added that the resulting mice are adults, male and female, and that they may continue to reproduce their [[species]] by copulation. Pasteur ironically commented that "though it is easy enough to conduct experiments, it is far from easy to conduct ''irreproachable'' ones" and finally concluded that experiments of the sort adduced, in the seventeenth century, in favor of the doctrine of spontaneous generation, are absurd even if they would be defended by famous names like [[Epicurus]], [[Aristotle]], or Van Helmont himself. Although Pasteur believed the doctrine of spontaneous generation, previously fueled i.a. by earlier [[Kant]]'s philosophical [[metaphysical]] dogmas{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Kant#Philosopher_of_Protestantism_vs._of_Evolutionary_thought|Kant: Philosopher of Protestantism vs. of Evolutionary thought: ]]|group=note}} as well as by Pasteur's contemporaries Pouchet, Musset, Joly and Buffon, will never recover from the mortal blow inflicted by his [[experimental science|experiments]], a group of evolutionists, who needed to camouflage their adherence to failed hypothesis, rebranded and modified original theory under the new name of so called [[chemical evolution]]. Yet, in effort to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life, most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’.<ref>{{cite web |title=Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis |author= Jerry Bergman |publisher=CMI |url=http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis |quote=Abiogenesis was once commonly called ‘chemical evolution’, but evolutionists today try to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life. This is one reason that most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’. Chemical evolution is actually part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’.}}</ref>

Another reason exists to exaggerate abiogenesis claims—it is an area that is critical to proving evolutionary naturalism. If abiogenesis is impossible, or extremely unlikely, then so is naturalism.

Another reason exists to exaggerate abiogenesis claims—it is an area that is critical to proving evolutionary naturalism. If abiogenesis is impossible, or extremely unlikely{{#tag:ref|cf. ''"Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions."'' <ref>{{cite web |title=A First Look at ARFome: Dual-Coding Genes in Mammalian Genomes |author=Wen-Yu Chung et al. |publisher=PLoS Comput Biol. |date=2007 May |issue=3(5): e91. |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868773/ |accessdate=December 30, 2013}}</ref>|group=note}}, then so is naturalism.

==The Current Modifications to the Original Theory==

==The Current Modifications to the Original Theory==