Rudolf Virchow, in 1855, amended Schleiden and Schwanns’ Cell Theory, using the statement “OMNIS CELLULA E CELLULA”, meaning life orginates from pre existing sources of life. However, Oparin and Haldane proved that under extreme conditions, abiotic factors can create building blocks of the complex molecules that makes up organisms. Is there a mistake in my understanding of the both statements, or is one of the statements outdated?
In: 1
>Rudolf Virchow, in 1855, amended Schleiden and Schwanns’ Cell Theory, using the statement “OMNIS CELLULA E CELLULA”, meaning life orginates from pre existing sources of life. However, Oparin and Haldane proved that under extreme conditions, abiotic factors can create building blocks of the complex molecules that makes up organisms. Is there a mistake in my understanding of the both statements, or is one of the statements outdated?
Virchow’s 1855 statement that all cells come from cells was in contrast to another theory of the generation of new life, which was spontaneous generation – maggots appearing out of nothing in rotting meat, for example. Instead, Virchow said that a new cell must have been made from / generated by an existing one.
This is, of course, in conflict with abiogenesis as a concept, but of course Virchow lived in the middle of the 19th century and was wrong about a great many things. He opposed the teaching of Darwinian evolution at a point when it had become clear to the vast majority of the scientific community that it was essentially correct. He rejected the identification of Neanderthal fossils as evidence of a new species and instead attributed them to deformed humans. And he opposed the germ theory of disease, believing that all diseases arose from the malfunctioning of otherwise normal and healthy cells that already exist in a organism, and claiming that the reason germs were present in diseased tissue was because germs were naturally attracted to that tissue as a habitat, but that they certainly couldn’t have caused the disease.
___
In other words, Virchow was wrong to categorically reject abiogenesis, as he was wrong about a great many other things. Observation of abiotic systems today along with experimental and genetic evidence supports the proposition that life arose from non-living matter billions of years ago. There is certainly enough evidence of the possibility of abiogenesis in the primitive Earth that it would be incorrect to claim that the hypothesis can be refuted. Because we have very limited information about the Earth at the time abiogenesis happened, if it indeed happened (rather than something like seeding from space), and always will, it will probably never be possible to conclusively prove the exact early history of life on Earth.
>Rudolf Virchow, in 1855, amended Schleiden and Schwanns’ Cell Theory, using the statement “OMNIS CELLULA E CELLULA”, meaning life orginates from pre existing sources of life. However, Oparin and Haldane proved that under extreme conditions, abiotic factors can create building blocks of the complex molecules that makes up organisms. Is there a mistake in my understanding of the both statements, or is one of the statements outdated?
Virchow’s 1855 statement that all cells come from cells was in contrast to another theory of the generation of new life, which was spontaneous generation – maggots appearing out of nothing in rotting meat, for example. Instead, Virchow said that a new cell must have been made from / generated by an existing one.
This is, of course, in conflict with abiogenesis as a concept, but of course Virchow lived in the middle of the 19th century and was wrong about a great many things. He opposed the teaching of Darwinian evolution at a point when it had become clear to the vast majority of the scientific community that it was essentially correct. He rejected the identification of Neanderthal fossils as evidence of a new species and instead attributed them to deformed humans. And he opposed the germ theory of disease, believing that all diseases arose from the malfunctioning of otherwise normal and healthy cells that already exist in a organism, and claiming that the reason germs were present in diseased tissue was because germs were naturally attracted to that tissue as a habitat, but that they certainly couldn’t have caused the disease.
___
In other words, Virchow was wrong to categorically reject abiogenesis, as he was wrong about a great many other things. Observation of abiotic systems today along with experimental and genetic evidence supports the proposition that life arose from non-living matter billions of years ago. There is certainly enough evidence of the possibility of abiogenesis in the primitive Earth that it would be incorrect to claim that the hypothesis can be refuted. Because we have very limited information about the Earth at the time abiogenesis happened, if it indeed happened (rather than something like seeding from space), and always will, it will probably never be possible to conclusively prove the exact early history of life on Earth.
Latest Answers