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

Science Daily ^ | Feb. 3, 2010

[DesertSapper]

Primordial "soup"?

Why not ... bisque, borscht, bouillabaisse, bouillon, broth, chowder, cock-a-leekie, consommé, gazpacho, gumbo, julienne, minestrone, mulligatawny, potage, Scotch broth, or vichyssoise???

[metmom]

Color me not surprised.

For all creationists were mocked, belittled, and derided for not accepting current scientific consensus as truth and fact, they were exonerated in the end.

As expected, this theory goes in the dustbin of obsolete scientific theories while they scrabble to find another one which explains life on earth sans God.

[metmom]

Not so. Sopater is correct.

The challenge that evos always throw in the faces of those who disagree with them is *So, do you have anything better to offer? Then go for it. Until then, this is the best we have and we’re going to stick with it.*

Of course, it’s totally irrelevant that the current theory has holes big enough in it to drive a truck through. They act like we have to stick with it and teach it as fact until something better comes along, and that we can’t say it’s wrong and simply discard it without something to replace it.

Of course you can. You can recognize that something is wrong and still not know what the right answer is.

[count-your-change]

No soup for you!

[TheBattman]

The problem with fine-tuning anything... if you are fine tuning the completely wrong station, you will never get what you are looking for.

[metmom]

I was watching some show on guys trying to synthesize life the other day, and how they’re oh, so close to doing it.

And all they're doing is demonstrating that it takes intelligence, design, and purpose for life to come into existence, if they actually ever get there.

What's the height of absurdity is that they expect us to believe something happened by accident that they can't make happen on purpose.

[metmom]

>:(

[woollyone]

Entropy and Conservation
...it’s the Law!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[r9etb]

What fundamentally has changed by this suggested fine-tuning of evolutionary theory ?

The energy source and component chemicals, to name a couple. I expect that the underlying processes would have to be different as a result.

More to the point, though.... this new theory may actually be testable at some level, as both the vents and the component chemicals are still in existence.

[metmom]

So, this theory may actually qualify as science?

That’d be nice....

[r9etb]

So, this theory may actually qualify as science?

Possibly ... although I note that it adds a few rather interesting puzzles, such as "how did we get to carbon-based organisms from a sulfur-based environment?" Haldane's theory has the advantage of matching an assumed set of ancient chemicals to what we actually see in living organisms.

The new theory would have to come up with some method of transition.

[Sopater]

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.

Yes.

What fundamentally has changed by this suggested fine-tuning of evolutionary theory?

Fundamentally, it shows that it is not even known that there is a "kitchen".

[onedoug]

Interesting point.

[Sopater]

They’ve been “oh, so close” for “oh, so long”. Alchemy probably has a better chance of finding success than science does of demonstrating abiogenesis.

[Sopater]

You haven't heard of this skepticism is because you aren't involved in this field.

NOT TRUE: I've heard of this scepticism from creationists for quite some time.

So are you saying that the criticism of said scepticism has then come from those not involved in this field? That's an intereting admission.

[Sopater]

So, this theory may actually qualify as science?

Possibly ... although I note that it adds a few rather interesting puzzles, such as "how did we get to carbon-based organisms from a sulfur-based environment?"

It also adds the question that, if, as you said in post 30, "both the vents and the component chemicals are still in existence", is this abiogenesis still happining naturally?

[r9etb]

... is this abiogenesis still happening naturally?

That's where the "testable" part comes in.

Note that a "null result" would not be definitive, however -- the assumption underlying any test would be that the conditions at the vents are the same now as they were at the supposed beginning of biology; the same difficulty, in other words, that causes problems for Haldane's theory.

Evidence of abiogenesis, OTOH, would be huge.

[r9etb]

They’ve been “oh, so close” for “oh, so long”.

The difference now being that scientists have begun the process from scratch.... The perceptive will recognize their efforts as a form of Intelligent Design.

[Sopater]

Evidence of abiogenesis, OTOH, would be huge.

Indeed, though it also would not be difinitive.