Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life
Science Daily ^ | Feb. 3, 2010

Posted on 02/22/2010 8:13:17 AM PST by Sopater

For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

"Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London. "We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent -- one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores."

The soup theory was proposed in 1929 when J.B.S Haldane published his influential essay on the origin of life in which he argued that UV radiation provided the energy to convert methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the oceans of the early earth. However critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can't exist.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abiogenesis; creation; evolution; origins; primordialsoup; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
The "primordial soup" theory does not fall on it's lack of merit because pseudoscientists have propped it as their "best guess" for the origin of life on our planet.

Only when a "better guess" comes along are these pseudoscientists willing to expose the weakness of the initial theory in order to somehow add credence to their newest one.

"The reason that all organisms are chemiosmotic today is simply that they inherited it from the very time and place that the first cells evolved -- and they could not have evolved without it," said Martin.

Yeah? Well, just remember that you said that.
1 posted on 02/22/2010 8:13:18 AM PST by Sopater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sopater
.
No one should ever take these types of “theories” seriously.
It should never be confused with science which is verifiable and practical.
2 posted on 02/22/2010 8:16:37 AM PST by Touch Not the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Touch Not the Cat

“It should never be confused with science which is verifiable and practical.”

Exactly. If what they say is true, it’s easy enough to test it, and in testing, a form of life should be the result. Seems to me that is the logical test.

We are in the New Dark Ages. Science is purchased, not verified by independent experiments. Whoever is paying for the research defines the result.


3 posted on 02/22/2010 8:20:20 AM PST by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

4 posted on 02/22/2010 8:22:39 AM PST by Zakeet (Patches Kennedy isn't running for Congress again for medical reasons -- voters are sick of him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

If this new proposal is new, why is it on the Biology DVDs I bought for my daughter two years ago?


5 posted on 02/22/2010 8:23:41 AM PST by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I was watching some show on guys trying to synthesize life the other day, and how they’re oh, so close to doing it. But it strikes me that it’s an equation, and that one must realize what it’s other side is as well. I’d be pretty suprised if they could read the mind of God. Not that they ncessarily couldn’t, but that they won’t.


6 posted on 02/22/2010 8:26:12 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

So the new theory is the soup kettle is heated and stirred by deep underwater underwater vents. Ok, fine.

If the new line of reasoning is correct the evolutionary principle seems to remain intact, but cooked in a different kitchen. And if not correct, we are back where we started. What fundamentally has changed by this suggested fine-tuning of evolutionary theory ?


7 posted on 02/22/2010 8:28:32 AM PST by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Primordial soup, LOL! Everyone knows it was clam chowder.


8 posted on 02/22/2010 8:31:11 AM PST by HerrBlucher (Jail Al Gore and the Climate Frauds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Power, I need more power!
9 posted on 02/22/2010 8:32:45 AM PST by dblshot (Insanity - electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Sopater, Science said the soup scene science seemed settled so now the soup has soured?


10 posted on 02/22/2010 8:38:25 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

It wasn’t that long ago when the evowackos on FR tried to claim that the whole primordial soup/abiogenesis was never a part of the evolutional model.

Now they admit it? Kind of hard to deny what everyone over the age of about forty (and maybe younger) was told in school back in the day.


11 posted on 02/22/2010 8:39:03 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
lol

These people are idiots.

If life just happened to *POP* into existence from gases or soup or whatever wacky theory they have this year that doesn't involve God ... then it should be REAL EASY repeat the process in a lab right?

Oh they can't ... SHOCKING!

/s

12 posted on 02/22/2010 8:40:41 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (November is coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

This new “explanation” is no better than the primordial soup one.


13 posted on 02/22/2010 8:41:54 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
"All organisms are chemiosmotic today."

So I've been chemiosmotic all my life and didn't know it until now? I feel like the guy in Moliere who discovers he's been speaking prose all his life.

Campbell's Soup isn't going to be happy about something else William Martin said: "But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life."

14 posted on 02/22/2010 8:43:01 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Geesh. If you REALLY want to know how life was created, just ask someone that was there.


15 posted on 02/22/2010 8:50:16 AM PST by scoobysnak71 (I'm light skinned with no negro dialect. Could you milk me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

2 years in science = very new

biologist are jumping for joy that they’ve got something to work on for the next 40 years. That should keep them out of our hair.


16 posted on 02/22/2010 8:55:37 AM PST by campaignPete R-CT ("pray without ceasing" - Paul of Tarsus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I’m confused. If you didn’t believe the primordial soup theory then you were an ignorant anti-science dolt.

You’re right, it’s almost as if scientists use the language of metaphysical certainty when they’re doing little more than a wild guess.

Only math has proof. The rest are just monkeys at typewriters.


17 posted on 02/22/2010 8:58:02 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater


"No soup for you!"


18 posted on 02/22/2010 9:01:11 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (The liberals are asking us to give Obama more time. Is 25 to life enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
The rest are just monkeys at typewriters.

...with some assumptions:

1) The typewriters have already been engineered, designed and manufactured.

2) The typewriters remain in perfect working order, never wearing out, jamming or otherwise malfunctioning.

3) The typewriters come with inexhaustible ink ribbons.

4) Paper is magically inserted into said typewriters as needed, and there is, of course, an endless paper supply.

5) The monkeys pay attention to the typewriters.

6) The monkeys use the typewriters for typing, rather than throwing them around and smashing them on the ground, etc..

19 posted on 02/22/2010 9:06:39 AM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Only when a "better guess" comes along are these pseudoscientists willing to expose the weakness of the initial theory

NOT TRUE. The reason these scientists are undertaking this research is because they were convinced that the current thinking has serious flaws. You haven't heard of this skepticism is because you aren't involved in this field.

They also tend not to announce everything that they are thinking as the work is ongoing ... lest they draw competitors in who publish findings (before they themselves are able to).
20 posted on 02/22/2010 9:31:16 AM PST by campaignPete R-CT ("pray without ceasing" - Paul of Tarsus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Primordial "soup"?

Why not ... bisque, borscht, bouillabaisse, bouillon, broth, chowder, cock-a-leekie, consommé, gazpacho, gumbo, julienne, minestrone, mulligatawny, potage, Scotch broth, or vichyssoise???

21 posted on 02/22/2010 9:35:28 AM PST by DesertSapper (God, Family, Country . . . . . . . . . . and dead terrorists!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; ...

Color me not surprised.

For all creationists were mocked, belittled, and derided for not accepting current scientific consensus as truth and fact, they were exonerated in the end.

As expected, this theory goes in the dustbin of obsolete scientific theories while they scrabble to find another one which explains life on earth sans God.


22 posted on 02/22/2010 9:48:07 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT; Sopater

Not so. Sopater is correct.

The challenge that evos always throw in the faces of those who disagree with them is *So, do you have anything better to offer? Then go for it. Until then, this is the best we have and we’re going to stick with it.*

Of course, it’s totally irrelevant that the current theory has holes big enough in it to drive a truck through. They act like we have to stick with it and teach it as fact until something better comes along, and that we can’t say it’s wrong and simply discard it without something to replace it.

Of course you can. You can recognize that something is wrong and still not know what the right answer is.


23 posted on 02/22/2010 9:54:54 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: metmom

No soup for you!


24 posted on 02/22/2010 9:56:12 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tlb

The problem with fine-tuning anything... if you are fine tuning the completely wrong station, you will never get what you are looking for.


25 posted on 02/22/2010 9:58:34 AM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
I was watching some show on guys trying to synthesize life the other day, and how they’re oh, so close to doing it.

And all they're doing is demonstrating that it takes intelligence, design, and purpose for life to come into existence, if they actually ever get there.

What's the height of absurdity is that they expect us to believe something happened by accident that they can't make happen on purpose.

26 posted on 02/22/2010 10:00:27 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

>:(


27 posted on 02/22/2010 10:01:24 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Entropy and Conservation
...it’s the Law!


28 posted on 02/22/2010 10:01:48 AM PST by woollyone ("The trouble with socialism is you run out of other people's money to spend." Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!


29 posted on 02/22/2010 10:04:08 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tlb
What fundamentally has changed by this suggested fine-tuning of evolutionary theory ?

The energy source and component chemicals, to name a couple. I expect that the underlying processes would have to be different as a result.

More to the point, though.... this new theory may actually be testable at some level, as both the vents and the component chemicals are still in existence.

30 posted on 02/22/2010 10:10:12 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

So, this theory may actually qualify as science?

That’d be nice....


31 posted on 02/22/2010 10:11:24 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So, this theory may actually qualify as science?

Possibly ... although I note that it adds a few rather interesting puzzles, such as "how did we get to carbon-based organisms from a sulfur-based environment?" Haldane's theory has the advantage of matching an assumed set of ancient chemicals to what we actually see in living organisms.

The new theory would have to come up with some method of transition.

32 posted on 02/22/2010 10:16:15 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tlb
If the new line of reasoning is correct the evolutionary principle seems to remain intact, but cooked in a different kitchen. And if not correct, we are back where we started.

Yes.

What fundamentally has changed by this suggested fine-tuning of evolutionary theory?

Fundamentally, it shows that it is not even known that there is a "kitchen".
33 posted on 02/22/2010 10:19:00 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Interesting point.


34 posted on 02/22/2010 10:20:00 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

They’ve been “oh, so close” for “oh, so long”. Alchemy probably has a better chance of finding success than science does of demonstrating abiogenesis.


35 posted on 02/22/2010 10:23:05 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
You haven't heard of this skepticism is because you aren't involved in this field.

NOT TRUE: I've heard of this scepticism from creationists for quite some time.

So are you saying that the criticism of said scepticism has then come from those not involved in this field? That's an intereting admission.
36 posted on 02/22/2010 10:25:56 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; metmom
So, this theory may actually qualify as science?

Possibly ... although I note that it adds a few rather interesting puzzles, such as "how did we get to carbon-based organisms from a sulfur-based environment?"


It also adds the question that, if, as you said in post 30, "both the vents and the component chemicals are still in existence", is this abiogenesis still happining naturally?
37 posted on 02/22/2010 10:29:24 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
... is this abiogenesis still happening naturally?

That's where the "testable" part comes in.

Note that a "null result" would not be definitive, however -- the assumption underlying any test would be that the conditions at the vents are the same now as they were at the supposed beginning of biology; the same difficulty, in other words, that causes problems for Haldane's theory.

Evidence of abiogenesis, OTOH, would be huge.

38 posted on 02/22/2010 10:38:30 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
They’ve been “oh, so close” for “oh, so long”.

The difference now being that scientists have begun the process from scratch.... The perceptive will recognize their efforts as a form of Intelligent Design.

39 posted on 02/22/2010 10:39:52 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Evidence of abiogenesis, OTOH, would be huge.

Indeed, though it also would not be difinitive.
40 posted on 02/22/2010 10:52:22 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Indeed, though it also would not be difinitive.

I would have to argue otherwise. While may not represent be the exact process, it clearly demonstrates that such processes are possible.

41 posted on 02/22/2010 10:59:35 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
While may not represent be the exact process, it clearly demonstrates that such processes are possible.

Yes it would, but would not by any means rule out all other possibilities. Including possiblities that would perhaps be even better demonstrated through natural processes, but not yet considered. Hence, it would not be "difinitive". I do however concede that it would be huge. ;-)
42 posted on 02/22/2010 11:26:51 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
My ... admittedly limited ... understanding is that Haldane's theory turned out to be faulty because whatever complex molecules would have been created would have quickly disintegrated in the 'soup'.

There were later theories involving clay matrices where complex molecules could form and link together before being reduced.

My understanding is that the microscopic holes through which the sulfur compounds are jetted are a key ingredient in the first steps of abiogenesis.

They may act in a similar way to that proposed for clay matrices: a place for partial compounds to adhere to until the molecules are developed and stable enough to survive the 'soup'.

43 posted on 02/22/2010 11:30:08 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sopater; metmom; GodGunsGuts
These guys and/or anybody else with similar thoughts at least have testable ideas; they need to take whatever they think was involved in the way of chemistry and create some sterile test environment with hot vents and those chemicals in a lab and see if they can come up with simple life forms.

Moreover they should provide the public with a way to put down bets as to which way it turns out...

44 posted on 02/22/2010 1:46:43 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Moreover they should provide the public with a way to put down bets as to which way it turns out...

An excellent source of funding. Simply bet against yourself. ;-)
45 posted on 02/22/2010 2:21:23 PM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Of course, it’s totally irrelevant that the current theory has holes big enough in it to drive a truck through.

Every theory is subject to disproof. What evidence do you submit?

46 posted on 02/22/2010 2:30:30 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

We could start with the fact that nobody KNOWS what conditions were like when life allegedly arose and nobody knows what the mechanism was that caused the first molecules to form and remain.


47 posted on 02/22/2010 3:04:52 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: metmom
We could start with the fact that nobody KNOWS what conditions were like when life allegedly arose and nobody knows what the mechanism was that caused the first molecules to form and remain.

How does that disprove the theory? If we knew those things, there wouldn't be any need to theorize about them. You seem to be expecting to establish a Catch-22 that says you can't theorize until you already know.

48 posted on 02/22/2010 3:08:53 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom

The evolutionists elevate their theory’s and worship them as reality. What I say to them is just dont expect everyone else to.


49 posted on 02/22/2010 3:27:44 PM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

You are projecting.


50 posted on 02/22/2010 3:29:02 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson