New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life

Wiley-Blackwell ^ | Feb 2, 2010 | Unknown

[allmendream]

Seeking the mechanisms that might be behind abiogenesis no more removes God as the ultimate cause of the formation of life than discovering the mechanisms of nuclear fusion removes God as the creator of the Sun.

God called for the Earth and the Seas to bring forth life. Thus the Bible is fully consistent with the possibility that God used rational and physical means, utilizing the laws of nature that God himself created; to create life.

I have never understood the “either God did it by magic or there is no need for God” outlook. To me it is the illogical continuation of the “God of the gaps” philosophy.

[count-your-change]

“Here we consider how the earliest cells might have harnessed a geochemically created force and then learned to make their own.”

Oh well then, that settles it, simple as can be. Cells pop into existence, find something to eat and go for domestic over imported victuals. Takes a bit cleverness is all.Having sorted all that out what's next? How climate change acted as the tutor?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks decimon. Thomas Gold ping.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks decimon. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[Mr. Lucky]

This is probably way over my head, but how would cumulative self organization work in the abiogenic world?

[Pharmboy]

Angels. Dancing. Pinheads. Quantification.

We'll never EVER know, so one theory is as good as 'nother.

[colorado tanker]

Oh waiter! There’s a fly in my primordial soup!

[wendy1946]

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Fred Hoyle
Nature, Nov 12, 1981, p. 148

[Just mythoughts]

Well thank you for this post, now that the ‘new’ research has decided to cast off ancient theories. But where oh where will this “NEW” knowledge lead these people.... especially since they can’t theorize on what they cannot see.

[decimon]

...they can’t theorize on what they cannot see.

If that were true then we'd all still be living in caves like SunkenCiv.

[SunkenCiv]

There has never been an escape from stalagmite thirteen.

[GSP.FAN]

[decimon]

There has never been an escape from stalagmite thirteen.

I'm left calcified by your comment.

[wolfcreek]

There would be a lot of empty pages in those textbooks.

[dsc]

“God called for the Earth and the Seas to bring forth life. Thus the Bible is fully consistent with the possibility that God used rational and physical means, utilizing the laws of nature that God himself created; to create life. I have never understood the “either God did it by magic or there is no need for God” outlook.”

Well said. After you get past the fact that God did it, everything else begins to look secondary, at best.

[allmendream]

Well secondary in many respects, but scientifically the primary question is not “did God do it or not” but “how was it accomplished via rational means”.

For those of us who adore God as well as perform science, discovering those possible means expands our adoration of God, it does not in any way relegate HIS actions to only that which we cannot explain.

Thanks!

[dsc]

“Well secondary in many respects, but scientifically the primary question is not “did God do it or not” but “how was it accomplished via rational means.”

I think scientists might ultimately disover that everything God does is rational.

“For those of us who adore God as well as perform science, discovering those possible means expands our adoration of God, it does not in any way relegate HIS actions to only that which we cannot explain.”

Not a scientist myself, but I think I see what you mean. Explaining carbohydrate metabolism as a physical process doesn’t mean that God didn’t set it up to run that way.

Many scientists seem to be terrified at the thought of a God who can violate any physical law at will. Or in some cases, perhaps, petulant at the challenge to their own supremacy as the jewel in the crown of evolution.

[allmendream]

Scientists have discovered that an assumption of rationality is the only avenue available for scientific advancement. God made a universe that obeys rational laws, and science only works if we assume that there was no miraculous abatement of those laws.

Scientists are not, on the whole, “terrified” of the idea that God can violate physical laws; most scientists in the USA are people of faith, they simply recognize that such is outside the domain of science.

There is no jewel and no crown in evolution. The idea that evolution ‘perfects’ and that we are somehow the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution is a rather insidious misinterpretation of what the theory entails.

If there is anything at all special about humanity it is not contained within our imperfect physical bodies; but in the immortal soul bequeathed to us by God.