Happy Atheist Forum

I know, it's not rock solid but, I've never read that anywhere else. Simple error? Or did the creationists get to them

aâ‹...biâ‹...oâ‹...genâ‹...eâ‹...sis
â€, â€,/ËŒeɪbaɪoʊˈdÊ'É›nÉ™sɪs, ˌæbioÊŠ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abiogenesis

That is a bit strange.  The old type of spontaneous generation like flies coming from rotted meat was discredited long ago.  However, modern abiogenesis research has made some considerable progress with the demonstration of self assembling nucleotides and lipid bilayers.  Even the late Stanley Miller's work was significant and recently more notes from his work were found where different atmospheric configurations produced various amino acids required for life.  The inquiry into the environments of hydrothermal vents has yielded a lot of information as well.  A lot of headway has been made in the last 20 or 30 years into a very complicated area of inquiry - definitely not at all discredited.

If anything, the research has shown that the process was not "spontaneous" in the conversational sense of the term.  That implies that life suddenly appeared out of nowhere when some organic molecules slammed together.  This isn't what the science says, that's what opponents to the science claim.  They attack abiogenesis and claim it is just old school spontaneous generation - but it's them that claim life appeared suddenly out of nowhere.  But a dictionary is hardly a place to get solid information on science.

This description is a much better one:

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis/

Can anyone edit dictionary.com?

Okay, that's just wrong... I'd accept "The hypothesis that..." but I wasn't aware that it had been definitively discredited by the science community.  Methinks that some Christians got to the edit button somehow.

I think whoever was in charge of that dictionary.com entry either didn't know what abiogenesis refers to and made an (incorrect) somewhat educated guess or purposely screwed up the definition.

Is there contact information to inform the company that they screwed up?  The definitions below on the same page are acceptable.

I contacted Dictionary.com:

QuoteAbiogenesis is the name for a hypothesis by which organic matter comes from inorganic matter. Abiogenesis itself has not been debunked, but rather only one specific hypothesis of many. Spontaneous generation is an outdated (predating Darwin) type of abiogenesis. Newer theories include information gathered from subsequent experiments, the most notable of which is the Millerâ€"Urey experiment which demonstrated some evidence for chemical abiogenesis using conditions and chemicals present billions of years ago on earth when it's theorized that life began. If you're unsure as to how to proceed, I strongly suggest contacting someone with an advanced degree in biology.

It seems like willravel's respondant has the right idea.

Spontaneous generation=no
Other forms of abiogenesis=possible

Despite this, the incorrect definition remains on the page, besides illucidating thier own personal viewpoint, they weren't very helpful at all.

I sent the following.  It's a little harsh at the end because I was trying to point out how stupid their entry is without referring to it as stupid:

QuoteI noticed that the dictionary.com entry for abiogenesis does not fit what is commonly meant by the term. Spontaneous generation was a belief that complex life, such as flies, were created by rotting organic matter.  You can of course, research it for yourself.  Spontaneous generation is discredited but that doesn't mean that abiogenesis is discredited.  It would be like saying that Evolution is discredited because Lamark was wrong about how animals evolved!  Modern notions of abiogenesis deal with the creation of organic compounds from inorganic matter.  There is more than one current theory and some lab tests have already been performed which are promising.  It should also be noted that the dictionaries linked on the same page did not make this same error.  I think it would be a good idea to recheck your source in order to provide accurate information.  Honestly, the last time I saw abiogenesis claimed to be discredited was right next to a claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together!

I'm glad you and Will wrote to them, lets see what happens.

This skewed and incorrect definition comes from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary © 1997.  Dictionary.com is not the only online dictionary which uses that source, so they are not the only ones spreading  this crypto-fundamentalist definition on the web.  Dictionary.infoplease.com is another, and there may be more.  I would imagine that if you get a response at all, it will be to the effect that "we will rely on our source, thank you" but that remains to be seen.

whoever created the definition is seriousely a few centuries behind