WARNING! This podcast contains explicit science not suitable for creationists!
In this episode Matt and I go over the history of spontaneous generation, how the idea began and how it fell out of favor. We then go over various myths of creation before proceeding to the Scientism myth of creation: abiogenesis. We take a whirlwind tour through hydrothermal vents, the Krebs Cycle, the iron sulfur world of Günter Wächtershäuser, and about a semester’s worth of high school biology in just a few excruciating minutes.
So strap on those nerd glasses, get your pocket calculators out, and let’s do this thang.
25 Responses to “2.6: Spontaneous Generation and Abby O’Genesis”
I refuse to believe a new podcast has been posted.
I’m more of a new podcast agnostic. I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not a new podcast has been posted.
But … but … the evidence …!
But how would I even know if this was the one, true podcast?
The burning in your loins clearly testifies of the eternal truthness of this podcast. Don’t tell me your loins aren’t burning right now.
You told me that would go away if I jumped up and down after…
I enjoyed the remastered theme song.
My loins are burning. Can I have paradise yet?
not enough penis talk
Matt you had one job!
How is your dog because that is the important question. Hope he/she is OK.
Wow, you really went all out with the Star Trek references. Looks like I’m going to be dishing out some swirlies.
jk jk I love that shit. It’s like that time in that one Star Trek movie where Bones says “Why do we call everything we don’t understand a ‘thing’?” I’m not sure how this is relevant, but what ever nerds.
Do I gather correctly that Matt is a pilot? Between Leighton’s naval experience, Matt’s flying, and Pakhdi’s superhuman doggedness, I think Chuck is trying to breed the perfect Navy SEAL. The missing hand can only improve the final result. It’s natural selection.
One word Not Jesus: Crabs.
Stand back science, this is a job for superstition!
A bit of topic but you guys have GOT to watch this shit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUOg5F886xw&feature=share&list=UUtlfyd1Xs9CtxfBNP9_IgAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTRn28iZD_g&list=UUtlfyd1Xs9CtxfBNP9_IgAw
Next podcast: 2 1/2 penises…! Now, that is clearly a sign of the return of Leighton to Irreligiosophy! Who else could the half penis be?
(Is Herb going to chastise me again?)
That was some pretty blinding science there, Chuck. I just hope there won’t be a quiz on this stuff next week…
Alright, here’s a primer in the basic pronunciation of the German language.
An umlaut essentially functions as an “e” following the vowel upon which it is placed.
An “ä”, therefore, functions as “ae”, and sounds something like the “ea” in the word “fear”.
And no, I am not–nor is any member of my family–a Nazi. I only learned the language because reading Kant in English wasn’t unbearable enough.
Scratch that “ae” is pronounced like the long “i” in English…
But seriously, who the fuck cares? If God had wanted you to speak German, he would have made damn well sure you were born there.
About the new Pope. The BBC did a documentary (podcast) on the accusations about him not aiding but selling out the two priest. Also, it is apparent that he lied under oath on a more serious matter about kidnapped babies.
If Francesco Redi had applied electrical current to his experiments, would they have become fresh food again?
So I suppose you could say that Louis Pasteur was a… milk and water scientist?
Enjoyed my butt off at this podcast. Thanks Chuck and Ley… hm… the other guy.
Enjoyed the chemistry.
Needs more vulva. Hmmm, vulva.
Minus
Hey guys, do you know why Irreligiosophy crossed the road?
Still in the early bits of this episode (thanks for doing these).
First, Matt’s French was not bad at all. I understood: “spontaneous generation is a chimera”. In French, that of course refers to the mythical beast, but is used more like “an illusion” or “a mirage”, because of course, the beast doesn’t exist.
Second, I’m no scholar, but when I heard the Darwin pond quote, I thought he was responding to a question like: “why isn’t life being created all the time, if we can have conditions today similar to those that allow for life to have been created in the first place (water, heat, electricity, nutrients, etc.?”. His answer seems to be that such new life would be so primitive it would be absorbed (i.e., eaten) by the existing life forms. What do you think? Did I get that totally wrong?
No, that’s what I got from it as well.