Replies

That's the thing. Macroevolution has been shown to be inadequate, and yet it hasn't been thrown out yet.

Spontaneous generation just was re-dubbed chemical generation.

Macroevolution is every bit as dogmatic and religious as Creationism.

Spontaneous generation just was re-dubbed chemical generation.

Look up the definition of "spontaneous". In any case the term "spontaneous generation" is used in science to refer to an historical view that living things come into existence from non-living material as a normal and recurring process in nature. I.e. something envisioned to happen all the time, not just at one time long ago.

In fact spontaneous generation originally arose as a scientific view in a CREATIONIST context, many, many years before Darwin came along. Although some pre-Darwinian evolutionists (e.g. Lamarck) accepted spontaneous generation, Darwin himself rejected the notion.

Bear in mind that one of the distinctive features of Darwin's theory was that it included the idea -- which previous evolutionary schemes did not -- of universal common descent (i.e. that all living things are ultimately related by ordinary biological reproduction). Spontaneous generation is INCONSISTENT with common descent. If living things are continually or even intermittently coming into existence by means other than biological reproduction then all living things are NOT related.

That's the thing. Macroevolution has been shown to be inadequate, and yet it hasn't been thrown out yet. Spontaneous generation just was re-dubbed chemical generation. Macroevolution is every bit as dogmatic and religious as Creationism.

It hasn’t been thrown out yet because it is adequate.

A novel example of macroevolution can be found when a plant has an error in meiosis which leads to offspring with polyploidy. They’re phenotypically identical to the parent; neither you nor I could tell them apart just by looking at them. But, since they possess more sets of chromosomes than their parent, they cannot reproduce with other members of the parent’s species. If they are barred from reproducing, then they are a distinct species. Distinct species? Sounds like macroevolution – any change at or above the level of species.

I have never heard of chemical generation in a science context. The first result on a google search related to a literary movement. Can you provide a source corroborating your claim that spontaneous generation was simply remarketed (c.f. creationism to intelligent design)?