Stanley Miller's classic "primordial soup" experimental setup,
with a simulated ocean, lightning and broth
of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water.
Posted on 04/08/2005 7:39:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A new University of Colorado at Boulder study indicates Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet.
Published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine, the study concludes traditional models estimating hydrogen escape from Earth's atmosphere several billions of years ago are flawed. The new study indicates up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favorable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life.
The paper was authored by doctoral student Feng Tian, Professor Owen Toon and Research Associate Alexander Pavlov of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics with Hans De Sterk of the University of Waterloo. The study was supported by the NASA Institute of Astrobiology and NASA's Exobiology Program.
"I didn't expect this result when we began the study," said Tian, a doctoral student in CU-Boulder's Astrobiology Center at LASP and chief author of the paper. "If Earth's atmosphere was hydrogen-rich as we have shown, organic compounds could easily have been produced."
Scientists believe Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and geologic evidence indicates life may have begun on Earth roughly a billion years later.
"This study indicates that the carbon dioxide-rich, hydrogen-poor Mars and Venus-like model of Earth's early atmosphere that scientists have been working with for the last 25 years is incorrect," said Toon. In such atmospheres, organic molecules are not produced by photochemical reactions or electrical discharges.
Toon said the premise that early Earth had a CO2-dominated atmosphere long after its formation has caused many scientists to look for clues to the origin of life in hydrothermal vents in the sea, fresh-water hot springs or those delivered to Earth from space via meteorites or dust.
The team concluded that even if the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were large, the hydrogen concentrations would have been larger. "In that case, the production of organic compounds with the help of electrical discharge or photochemical reactions may have been efficient," said Toon.
Amino acids that likely formed from organic materials in the hydrogen-rich environment may have accumulated in the oceans or in bays, lakes and swamps, enhancing potential birthplaces for life, the team reported.
The new study indicates the escape of hydrogen from Earth's early atmosphere was probably two orders of magnitude slower than scientists previously believed, said Tian. The lower escape rate is based in part on the new estimates for past temperatures in the highest reaches of Earth's atmosphere some 5,000 miles in altitude where it meets the space environment.
While previous calculations assumed Earth's temperature at the top of the atmosphere to be well over 1,500 degrees F several billion years ago, the new mathematical models show temperatures would have been twice as cool back then. The new calculations involve supersonic flows of gas escaping from Earth's upper atmosphere as a planetary wind, according to the study.
"There seems to have been a blind assumption for years that atmospheric hydrogen was escaping from Earth three or four billion years ago as efficiently as it is today," said Pavlov. "We show the escape was limited considerably back then by low temperatures in the upper atmosphere and the supply of energy from the sun."
Despite somewhat higher ultraviolet radiation levels from the sun in Earth's infancy, the escape rate of hydrogen would have remained low, Tian said. The escaping hydrogen would have been balanced by hydrogen being vented by Earth's volcanoes several billion years ago, making it a major component of the atmosphere.
In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller sent an electrical current through a chamber containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, yielding amino acids, considered to be the building blocks of life. "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept."
In the new CU-Boulder scenario, it is a hydrogen and CO2-dominated atmosphere that leads to the production of organic molecules, not the methane and ammonia atmosphere used in Miller's experiment, Toon said.
Tian and other team members said the research effort will continue. The duration of the hydrogen-rich atmosphere on early Earth still is unknown, they said.
First, try The Tao of Psychics" by Fritjof Capra.
Next, try " Mind into Matter" by Fred Allen Wolf, Ph.D.
The best book on the subject is theories written by all the major phsychists throughout history - Quantum Questions : Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists
Go to any book store site, there's lots of them:
Parallel Worlds: A Journey through Creation
Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos
Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics
Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy
"Again, who enforces the laws of physics?"
Everything in existance.
"I don't know why the laws of physics exist. I don't know why the universe exists."
Stop there and ask yourself: "If I don't know this, how can I claim to 'know' anything?"
You "know" the consequences of certain laws, yet you have not observed life coming forth from simple compounds. How do you "know" what you say it true then?
"The only difference between the laws of theology and the laws of quantum are the choices of words."
Well, if your trying to map the terminology of quantum mechanics to religion, the best fit is with a generic neither-here-nor-there it-its-all-in-how-you-look-at-it, we-create-our-own-reality new ageish belief system.
"Again, who enforces the laws of physics?"
Jesus. He sits on the right side of God and makes sure that every particle behaves itself. Should one get out of line he sends them directly to hell.
If it isn't a miracle, then THAT's a miracle!!
You know, PH and I ahve had a few kind words together on this thread. I think you should read them. Especially the ones concerning how one slams creationists.
"How do you "know" what you say it true then?"
I don't know. It is my best hypothesis given what I have seen and studied on this planet. If you have a better explanation than mine I would love to hear it.
Why? All they can do is preach their pagan religion. They have no proof at all. Why waste all that time learning nothing but wild theories?
I'd rather go shopping.
Ahem:
6 yom. 6 periods of time. (for one thing)
Another- Genesis 2:7.
No, they abide the laws. Who enforces them?
"Why? All they can do is preach their pagan religion. They have no proof at all. Why waste all that time learning nothing but wild theories?
I'd rather go shopping."
Then please do. And since you abhor science so much, you better not drive to the mall, or go to a doctor while you are there. Since scientists are just a bunch of pagans its best you not use their infernal contraptions lest ye be sentanced to hell for following the pagans.
So far as anyone can tell, the laws of physics just are what they are. That answer isn't much different ultimately than saying "god is what it is" except it's easier for most people to pretend the latter is satisfactory. I think the reason is because part of the pretense is the notion that after death the question will be answered, whereas otherwise we probably won't ever have the answer, and people really hate not being able to have something they want so badly....
"Ahem:
6 yom. 6 periods of time. (for one thing)
Another- Genesis 2:7."
Are you saying that people don't believe that life was created in 6 literal days? I know not everybody does. That is besides the point in either case.
Did life spring from nothing? Or did life arise from compounds already present on the planet?
What have you been reading???
The archeology websites and the study of Neanderthal DNA. They can't explain any of it! I'm still waiting for an answer. It's all "The theory holds, maybe, we assume, it would suggest...."
All evolutionary documents are like that. They have nothing!
The big foot thing was sarcastic. I thought it was funny.
I'd be willing to say any Amish man is a better man than you or I.
They hold to what you just stated in sarcasm.
That being said
The same thing applies to evolution. They're both just beliefs based on faith.
Read the passage I gave you. Any Bible thumper knows life didn't come from nothing. It even suggests that life came from non-living things. But another being was required to form it.
"Are you saying that people don't believe that life was created in 6 literal days?"
Are you sayign that it's the common consensus? You assume much, young padawan.
"Preaching that life came from non-life is not only not scientificly sound (as it is yet to be observed)"
That is the silliest statement I have ever heard. Of course life came from non-life. Where else could it come from? Either life has always existed or at some point it originated from matter we would not consider alive. Even if I believe that God created life out of nothing, it still had to come out of non-life.
There is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution; the only serious debate is whether it was guided by an external force.
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.