the "gill slits" →
- CHALLENGE ← - Esihistorialliset eläimet
Takaisin Ajatusvarikolle - Back to the Thought Deposit
Dinoglyyfit - Dinoglyfs
HAASTE - CHALLENGE ←
- Esihistorialliset eläimet historiankirjoissa- Prehistoric Creatures Documented by the Ancient Man
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE
in Ernst Haeckel's Moneron (Monera)
Haeckel’s drawings of the eating habit and reproductive cycle of an alleged Moneron (plural: "Monera") . Haeckel invented and drew a series of miniscule protoplasmic organisms to be ‘not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simple homogeneous matter… nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon.’ (The History of Creation, 3rd ed. in 1883, p. 184.) Ernst Haeckel (1882) Naturlig Skapelsehistoria, s. 127. Öfversättning från originalets sjunde upplaga af A.F. Åkerberg. Stocholm. A.W.Björcks Förlag.
In 1866, Ernst Haeckel speculated life arose from a vat of “Urschleim” (primeval slime). Biologists Aleksandr Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane proposed in the 1920s that life emerged from nonliving matter in what is often called a “primordial soup.” The theory cannot be disproven, but it has never been demonstrated in 80+ years (even if life is defined only as the existence of protein bodies). The only experimental evidence cited in 80+ years for a primordial soup is the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, which is nevertheless recycled in practivally EVERY high school text books in biology in the secular Western countries. It demonstrated that elementary amino acids (building blocks of protein) could form spontaneously in what was assumed to be the atmosphere of the primordial Earth. Biology textbooks feature this experiment; but modern science believes the simulated atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiment was incorrect. Similar experiments with a more realistic atmosphere have not been as successful (and/or have utilized so much operator interference that their validity is questioned).
Allegedly the first drawn genealogical/phylogenetic tree. Note the Monera, the still surviving (and fraudulent) link between inorganic and living matter in the trunk of the tree (from the 5th ed. of The Evolution of Man, 1910).
Thomas Henry Huxley confirmed Haeckel's Moneron in 1868 and named them Bathybius haeckelii according to the name of his counterpart in the continent. But Huxley rejected the discovery immediately upon its refutation as silica pasta. Huxley is remembered for the aphorism: "Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact."
Unfortunately, Haeckel's reprints of The History of Creation remained unrevised until the last print in 1923. Detailed, yet non-existent, 'life particles' is a heinous deceit. The Monera-article had 70 pages and 30 drawings (Haeckel 1868b). Omne vivum ex ovo (vivo) said William Harvey back in 1651.
Spontaneous (non-informational) creation was widely accepted even in the case of worms, mice, scorpions etc. until the 1800'ies. Darwin abstrahized his "warm, little pond" before Pasteur gave the mortal blow to the belief by the way of Redi and Spallanzani. Darwin's black box – the cells - was the final citadel to yield itself.
Thomas Henry Huxley from England confirmed the finding and named the discovery Bathybius haeckelii. Huxley rejected the discovery immediately upon its refutation, but Haeckel's reprints of The History of Creation (1876) remained unrevised until the final edition in 1923.
The correspondence between Huxley and Haeckel is an excellent indication of the differing "Zeitgeist" between the British Isles and the continent. The English edition of the Generelle Morphologie did not contain the main arguments on the descent of man or his 'system of monism'. Huxley cancelled entire chapters from Haeckel's main work despite the fact that he was a fervent defender of Darwinism. Huxley remained an adherent of agnosticism – a word that Huxley coined by himself for himself (Uschman 1979, p. 116)!
Haeckel did not have his cousin to advice in the experiences like that of Darwin regarding the two visits in the islands of southern Pacific, John G. Patton, London Missionary Society, and the impact of environment over the heritage. Was the phrase agnosticism directed only against the churches? What if it also meant divergence from the more vulgar evolutionary indoctrination in the continent?
I think the difference in the legacy of popularization in the British Isles and the continent could have contributed to the ideological resistance of the England against the race hygiene and the coalition with the Nazi Germany after it had assumed power by Thulean conspiracies behind democratic elections.
In one generation, this black box view of the living cell has changed dramatically. Bruce Alberts, the president of the National Academy of Science, wrote as a beginning to his Cell-commentary (1998):
"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s".
Alberts’ article was entitled "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists" and the whole issue was dedicated to the topic of the “molecular machines”.
It should be evident that cells are polar structures, whose interior is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. To carry out directional processes, cells have to subdue randomizing effect of Brownian motion and possess proteins operating as tiny machine-like devices. These units can function even as molecular motors, which convert chemical energy into mechanical work. Thus, a novel paradigm of “solid phase biochemistry” is being introduced to life sciences despite the fact that the teleological or even the more agnostic teleonomical phraseology has not been kept alive in the scientific literature.