Life, The Cosmos, and Spontaneous Generation

Life in the Cosmos and Abiogenesis

Avayl

“So far as all the scientists on the earth can prove, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis—life must come from antecedent life. Life produces life of the same kind, whether you look at protozoa or elephants” (Meldau, 1959)

From the very beginning of our education we are told that life cannot come from non-living things. “Life begets life” as it is said, yet the evidence is certainly to the contrary. Many of the great scientific discoveries of the past one hundred years have been ignored or suppressed. Some scientists, most notably in the past 40 years, have begun to break away from the silence and speak about how the universe really works. The truth is that life does come from non-living matter, life in its simplest form is highly abundant in our galaxy, and that life is taking on new forms every day.

Most of the 21st century has been racked by political, economic, and social turmoil. Yet scientists in the 19th century were no strangers to the same stressors we see today. It is only in magnitude by which the body of lies has been perpetuated. Through the work of Louis Pasteur we know that bacteria and other microbial organisms are killed at certain temperatures and that if kept hermetically contained they will remain bacteria free until opened again. His work has long been cited as the premier event that put spontaneous generation to rest. In recent years, however, there have been scientists that have raised doubts concerning his results, procedures, and theories.

It is important to note that for the better part of the 20th century the prominent scientific minds have agreed that bacteria were the first forms of life here on Earth. They have also agreed that this bacterium was generated in the ‘primordial soup’ of our ancient past. The most ardent of supporters will argue that this was the only case of spontaneous generation that ever took place on Earth. Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain’s eminent astronomer said: “In accepting the ‘primeval soup theory’ of the origin of life scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas.”

The man behind the proof, Louis Pasteur, has come under serious fire recently when his notes were released in 1994 by the family descendants. In 1995 an article in the New York Times written by Gerald Geison concluded that Pasteur had stolen some of his ideas from his fellow competitors and had lied about his research on germs and their vaccines. Why he would lie about the results of his experiments is a mystery to some. Many of the other scientists that were alive and practicing in his time were also competing to discover a way to treat rabies and other biological diseases. His competitors ran into a problem when they were experimenting with sterilization techniques and preparations of hay. What they found was that after a short incubation period after the sterilization small microbial life forms were found in the solution growing out of non-living material. Through his notes Pasteur described his procedures and methods for the sterilization of tools and equipment.

Today scientists follow a strict set of procedures and rules, called the scientific method, and it is also something that Pasteur apparently was not a fan of. In some cases his methods would contradict his public statements and in others his experimental results would contradict his method of application (Miller, Bioscience, 1993). In another case, according to his notes, Pasteur did the complete opposite of what his experimental methods detailed. Surprisingly he stumbled upon a treatment for rabies. Publicly he was a hero, privately his behavior could be considered criminal. The question still remains: Why would he lie about his results? The answer is simple: Profit. Germs, vaccines, and the treatment of diseases is a profitable business. This profitability is what helped him gain notoriety and secured him lucrative deals and he later went on to found numerous scientific institutes.

For many years the scientific community has claimed its victory over the theory of spontaneous generation and the result is pasteurization. This process claimed it could rid milk and other products of their harmful bacteria and viruses. What we see is the more serious viruses and bacteria are not killed in the pasteurization process. Diseases like Typhoid, Coli Bacillus, and Tuberculosis are not killed by the temperatures used (Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors). As far back at 1982 there have been thousands of reported cases of diseases and viruses being transmitted by Pasteurized milk. Raw milk, however, has seen no reported cases of illnesses or biological diseases. Many other examples show how Pasteurization is ineffective and even harmful to the milk itself, but this is not the extent of abiogenesis.

In the 1960’s a study was being conducted on the composition of galactic dust by British astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Nalin Chandra. Their study involved observations of the spectrographic readings and the infrared signatures of galactic dust. After their examination of the data they concluded that 99.9% of dust particles must be 70% hollow on the inside (Hoyle, Cambridge press, 1988). They also concluded that when they compared the composition of freeze-dried bacteria to their data that the entire system of observation lined up. When a bacterium is frozen the inside becomes 70% hollow and it forms a hard outer shell to protect it from the hostile environment. This theory was vigorously rejected by the scientific community but it begs the question: Is life explicit to our planet? The assumption that decorated and honored scientists do not create fraudulent data to form wild conjectures, is one that becomes evident.

The proof of their claim came in 2008 when scientists from the Imperial College of London found evidence of the chemical precursors of DNA and RNA in meteorites on Earth. The chemical makeup of DNA and RNA first begins with Uralic and Xanthine. These two chemicals were also found inside of a meteorite that crashed in Australia in 1969. Zita Martins explains that “early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoritic fragments for use in genetic coding which enabled them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations." Later the researchers were able to prove that the chemicals were not the result of contamination from Earth but were ‘extra-terrestrial’ in nature (Greuner, TGDaily, 2008). Earth is not the only place that DNA and RNA can be formed.

In the 1940’s Wilhelm Reich, while on the run from Nazis, coined the term ‘Bions’ in reference to micro-vesicles (air-filled cavities or sacs) that formed from incinerated organic and inorganic material. When materials, such as ocean sand or soil, are heated to incandescence and placed in a rich media, they produced round vesicles, 2 to 10 um in diameter, surrounded by a thick membrane inside of which appeared a bluish liquid (Reich, W., 1948). His method called fractional sterilization involved the complete incineration of materials at temperatures of 1400° C and then a subsequent incubation for a period of 24 hours (Prof. Ignacio Ochoa Pacheco, Neurobiologist, 2000-2001). The conditions of the experiment were designed to destroy the vegetative cell structure and spores. After the 24 hours the contents of the fluid were examined and it was observed that many cell structures had formed during the incubation period. It was determined that the structures were organic materials and that proteins had been newly formed inside the fluid. The attached pictures at the end of the document were taken and they depict clearly defines cell structures and complex organisms.

One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence for abiogenesis is an experiment done by Andrew Crosse in 1837. His procedures were originally designed to grow crystal cultures using low electrical currents. He mixed up a silicate of potash (salt containing potassium), hydrochloric acid and a hand sized piece of iron oxide. He hoped his experiment would produce artificial silica crystals forming on the rock. What his experiment did produce, 14 days later, were whitish specks on the center of the electrified stone. “Four days later, each speck was twice as large, and had six or eight tiny strands growing out from it. Each strand was longer than the speck itself.” (Wilcock, Source Field Investigations, 2011) About 26th days later, Crosse reported that the objects “assumed the form of perfect insects,” which stood on legs or bristles they were growing. Crosse did not immediately find this to be of any significance until days later when under a magnifying lens it was shown they, the supposed artificial silica crystals, were moving their legs. Days later, he saw them moving about in the solution and after a few weeks Crosse reports seeing more than a hundred (Crosse, American Journal of Science & Arts 35: 125-137, 1839).

After a tremendous amount of criticism Crosse and other scientists repeated the experiment with increased sterilization methods and they still received the same results. David Wilcock states it perfectly when he states that: “He (Crosse) was not sure whether they were actually created spontaneously in the sterile solution, or brought back to life by the electricity – but either result is a total challenge to the mainstream science and biology as we know it.”

It has become clear through this body of evidence that what the great scientific institutes and the researchers who back them have been telling us is staggeringly wrong. The things we are taught in school have a heavy weight upon how we view the world and life itself. Whether through ignorance or disinformation these lies about evolution and creation have infected us down to our very core. What is paramount, among all this evidence, is that life and the universe is far more mysterious than we have been lead to believe.

“The book of Nature is opened wide to our view by the Almighty power, and we must endeavor, as far as our feeble faculties will permit, to make good use of it, always remembering, that however the timid may shrink from investigation, the more completely the secrets of nature are laid bare, the more effectually will be the power of that Great Being be manifested, who seems to have ordained that, "Order is Heaven’s first law."” Andrew Crosse, Dec. 27, 1837

References:

Lanctot, Ghislaine. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://serreal.ning.com/group/alternativemedicinesforyourhealth/forum/topics/the-medical-mafia-by-dr>.

Miller, Julie. "The Truth About Louis Pasteur." Bioscience, May 1993. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://search.proquest.com.proxy.itt-tech.edu/sciencejournals/docview/216468804/132344048F45C290145/3?accountid=27655>.

Fred Hoyle: Home is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist’s Life. University Science Books, 1994, p. 7.

Chandra Wickramasinghe: A Journey with Fred Hoyle: The Search for Cosmic Life. World Scientific, 2005, p. 35.

F. Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe: The Theory of Cosmic Grains. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991, p. 128.

H.C. Van de Hulst: “The solid particles in interstellar space.” Rech. Astron. Obs. Utrecht, 1949, Volume 11, Number 2.

Crosse, Andrew. "Abiogenesis of Acari." Rex Research: Suppressed, Dormant,emerging Unconventional Alternative Technologies: Free Energy, Over-Unity, Antigravity, Inventions, Alchemy, Transmutation, Cannabis Hemp Marijuana, Magnet Motors, Alternative Therapies" Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.rexresearch.com/crosse/crosse.htm>.

Darwin, Francis, ed. (1903), More Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts).

Thompson, Ph.D., Bert. "Http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Mythology-of-Science.pdf." Apologetics Press, Inc. Web.