What lead biologists to reject vitalism?

P

pluto2

Banned
Banned
Last edited:
Maybe the recognition that life is indeed mechanical? Which at small scales we call chemistry.

Also, there was no vital essence that could be identified.
 
But several vitalist authors such as John Scott Haldane, James Le Fanu, Ken Wilber and David Wilcock would dispute the theory that life is completely mechanical.
 
But what makes you so sure that they are wrong? Personally I tend to be very skeptical about this.
 
There is no need for it, so use Occam's Razor. It was only viable when people didn't understand things like DNA.
 
Hi, spidergoat, I was just about to say the same thing.

Pluto: you might want to start with the basic premise, which is the inability to explain things that appear to have some magical property that animates them. Reproduction - before Watson and Crick - was a big part of that mystery. Another aspect is motion itself. 100 years ago this was not so well understood as it is today. Are these molecules alive?


Translational_motion.gif
 
spidergoat said:
There is no need for it, so use Occam's Razor. It was only viable when people didn't understand things like DNA.
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor applies to equally competitive theories. Mechanism and Vitalism are not equals.

Mechanism explains very well almost all of what we observe. Contrarily, no evidence of this vital spark has been observed. It is still merely hypothetical.
 
By the way, as far as the movie, It could be more of a David and Goliath story of the meek overcoming the strong. Kind of like Ripley in Alien.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top