New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life

Science Daily ^ | Feb. 3, 2010

[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.

[Sopater]

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.

[Touch Not the Cat]

.
No one should ever take these types of “theories” seriously.
It should never be confused with science which is verifiable and practical.

[brownsfan]

“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.

[Zakeet]

[Mr Rogers]

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

[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. 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.

[tlb]

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 ?

[HerrBlucher]

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

[dblshot]

Power, I need more power!

[count-your-change]

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

[SeaHawkFan]

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.

[TexasFreeper2009]

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

[SeaHawkFan]

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

[Verginius Rufus]

"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."

[scoobysnak71]

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

[campaignPete R-CT]

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.

[AmishDude]

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.

[reagan_fanatic]

"No soup for you!"

[TChris]

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..

[campaignPete R-CT]

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).