Skip to comments.New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life
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 ...
So far, I'm just evalutating the evidence.
Then you need to work on the logic part, and then go back to college and learn what science is really all about.
Specious, and odious. Every last one of them.
Those terms are adjectives. They don’t tell what the offensive comments were, they just tell how you felt about them.
I have the logic part down well enough to know the "you need to go back to college" part is bullshit.
And adjectives can be perjorative. They were.
Yup, and since they can't come to grips with it, it's time to derail the thread to draw attention away from that really inconvenient little detail.
He cant do it so now he’ll either try to change the topic, put words in my mouth, or both. Surprise surprise, where have we seen that before ;0
The problem evos run into it trying to support non-scientific theories using science, the same thing that they tell creationists they can’t do.
Until a time machine is developed that can transport us back in time to learn exactly what happened, it’s all speculation based on forensic evidence.
I didn’t see them used on this thread. What other adjectives was that that he used?
Notable that they start life from the remains of.......Life?
This is like the old desert emergency water kit: Drop this pill into a jar of water.... oops!
There’s not been one shred of evidence that life arose without life. Even the experiments in the lab only confirm this, as it takes human intervention to *create* the *right* conditions to cause some basic molecules to form and remain stable enough to survive.
What's interesting, is that creationists never believed it to begin with and were derided and mocked as being a bunch of anti-science Luddites for their lack of acknowledgment of a *theory* that is now no longer considered valid.
IOW, they were derided and mocked for being right.
Not only that, now the scientific world has come over to their position that the primordial soup concept was so much nonsense, the position that they mocked and derided.
And it only took them 80 years to decide that and that because they finally came up with something they think is better and could finally admit that the one they had was wrong, as they knew all along.
Which means that they should be pumping out new life every day.
O look everyone, Bill Ayers is here!
I read the article and the new theory looks about as an absurd of a probability as the old.
Faith in shifting sands in the name of science.
I don't believe that.
No soup for you!
Your unwillingness to provide any concrete examples but rely on innuendo and appeal to feelings, lend credence to the belief that you have nothing.
What you’re providing here in support of your comments would wouldn’t be acceptable in science. If you pride yourself in being a scientist or scientifically literate, you can do better than that.