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 ...
No soup for anyone, it seems.
Soup is so yesterday....
The evolutionists elevate their theorys to reality and worship them as such. What I say to them is just dont expect everyone else to do so.
Do you deny that evolutionists elevate their theorys and worship them as reality?
There was no empirical evidence presented, so a scientific methodology was not possible. The only thing presented was rhetoric, and it was addressed in the same terms as it was submitted.
Frevos love to come on these types of threads and whine and cry about how there's no *scientific discussion* that occurs on FR and yet they don't contribute any either.
You NEVER addressed the topic of the thread, the article from a science source. You never addressed the fact that the primordial soup theory is now defunct, as creationists have been saying for years. You didn't address the fact that we were right and that for decades evos were ridiculing creationists for not believing something that is now considered by the same scientific community which advocated it, not true. You hopped on here and made it all about you.
For that matter, I can't recall ANY thread where you contributed to actual scientific discussion by providing actual scientific evidence. All I recall seeing you do is constantly challenge to provide information for an ever increasing list of demands, which you then don't address.
Why don't you run along over to DC and commiserate with your buddies about what FR is becoming, how it's hurting the conservative movement, and how badly you were treated.
And don't forget the cheese.
The thing is, ALL of their theorys end up proven as fraud or on the junk pile.
Cry me a river.
A more important question is where did DNA come from?
I don’t need to. You already have....
They keep trying to tell us that it just assembled itself.
Of course, there’s still the little complication that they can hardly get the simpler molecules that comprise life to do that even under rigorously controlled conditions, but the devil is in the details.
Given enough time, ANYTHING is possible, dontcha know?
There must be some major cognitive dissonance lying under the surface of the skins of most ‘it came from nothing’ types.
And such intellectual contortionism I have never seen...
Sounds like the usual wailing about “projection”. You need new material.
“Entropy and Conservation
...its the Law!”
The Laws of Thermodynamics do not control the way things work.
Instead, the Laws of Thermodynamics describe how things are observed to behave.
This is more than a semantic difference. Perpetual motion isn’t prevented by the laws. Describable, physical causes and effects explain the failure of a given perpetual motion machine.
The laws as written are generalizations based on observation. If we observe that some physical phenomenon contradicts an expression of a physical law, then that law needs to be re-expressed to better reflect reality, not the other way around. We can’t say that what we are seeing isn’t happening because it’s against the law.
Spontaneous generation of life from non-life fails because of compelling probabalistic arguments and the impossibly steep chemical potentials required to jump start a living system.
Citing the laws as a creationist proof is logically flawed.
yes, of course. Nothing created everything, out of nothing, for no purpose whatsoever and it “evolved” into higher and higher levels of order. Right then. The only area where science excuses the laws of entropy and conservation is in their evolutionary faith religion. I understand it just fine.