Is that not the greatest question? Can something come from nothing? That's a question which science is still trying to prove. Also, a theory as grand as that would be nearly impossible to disprove. We would have to explore every inch of the universe from top to bottom to see if life only comes from life. If you are truly interested: Creationism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Intelligent Design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

yesterday in class, we learned about this from our book. it was proven that maggots weren't coming from the meat, but from flies because one jar was covered and the other wasn't. the flies can only get into the jar the is uncovered. that's when the flies lay their eggs which soon become maggots just as a caterpiller turing into a butterfly.

scientists have within the last few years shown how from matter rna can be formed. although they have not yet made dna it's conceivable that they eventually will. and from dna comes life. so, yes. from unliving matter can come life.

1) It depends on which theory we are speaking about. The old theory of spontaneous generation has been disproved. Because living things obviously exist and their existence does not seem possible at former stages of the evolution of the universe (Big Bang model), something of that kind must have happened. The scientific model for the origin of life assumes this. Also the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence or extraterrestrial life assumes this. 2) "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of the origin of life is a question of how the first nucleic acids came into existence. Some facts about the origin of life are well understood, others are still the subject of current research. The first living things on Earth were single cell prokaryotes and they first appeared on Earth about four billion years ago, just a few hundred million years after the formation of the Earth itself. By 2.4 billion years ago the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on earth was widespread by this time. On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses concerning early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms)." 3) "Until the early 19th century people generally believed in the ongoing spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter. Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth. In the 17th century, such assumptions started to be questioned; for example, in 1646, Sir Thomas Browne published his Pseudodoxia Epidemica (subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths), which was an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted. For example, his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants." The subsequent discovery of microorganisms seemed to strengthen the spontaneous generation camp. As far back as 1546, the physician Girolamo Fracastoro had theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores". However, even he did not go so far as to assert that the "spores" were living creatures, and regardless, his theories were not widely accepted at the time. All that changed in 1665, when Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism (he is also credited for naming the cell, which he discovered while observing cork samples). Hooke was followed in 1676 by Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, who drew and described microorganisms that are now thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. These discoveries sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world. Many felt such organisms were proof of spontaneous generation, since they seemed too simplistic for sexual reproduction, and asexual reproduction through cell division had not yet been observed. The first solid evidence against spontaneous generation came from the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the 17th century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be biogenesis: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (omne vivum ex ovo, Latin for "every living thing from an egg"). In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear of their own accord in sterile nutrient-rich media, and which supported cell theory. Darwin and Pasteur: By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." The collapse of spontaneous generation, however, left a vacuum of scientific thought on the question of how life had first arisen." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Well if its non living how can it make something?

There weren't always living things, yet there are living things now, so logically the theory must be true somewhere down the line. The word you are looking for is abiogenesis.

I think that some combination of chemical matter could possibly form some small microscopic organisms.

how do you think we got here in the first place?