Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life
Science Daily ^ | Feb. 3, 2010

Posted on 02/22/2010 8:13:17 AM PST by Sopater

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Sopater
Primordial "soup"?

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

21 posted on 02/22/2010 9:35:28 AM PST by DesertSapper (God, Family, Country . . . . . . . . . . and dead terrorists!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; ...

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.


22 posted on 02/22/2010 9:48:07 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT; Sopater

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.


23 posted on 02/22/2010 9:54:54 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: metmom

No soup for you!


24 posted on 02/22/2010 9:56:12 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tlb

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


25 posted on 02/22/2010 9:58:34 AM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

26 posted on 02/22/2010 10:00:27 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

>:(


27 posted on 02/22/2010 10:01:24 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

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


28 posted on 02/22/2010 10:01:48 AM PST by woollyone ("The trouble with socialism is you run out of other people's money to spend." Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!


29 posted on 02/22/2010 10:04:08 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tlb
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.

30 posted on 02/22/2010 10:10:12 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

So, this theory may actually qualify as science?

That’d be nice....


31 posted on 02/22/2010 10:11:24 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: metmom
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.

32 posted on 02/22/2010 10:16:15 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tlb
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".
33 posted on 02/22/2010 10:19:00 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Interesting point.


34 posted on 02/22/2010 10:20:00 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

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.


35 posted on 02/22/2010 10:23:05 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
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.
36 posted on 02/22/2010 10:25:56 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; metmom
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?
37 posted on 02/22/2010 10:29:24 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
... 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.

38 posted on 02/22/2010 10:38:30 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
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.

39 posted on 02/22/2010 10:39:52 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Evidence of abiogenesis, OTOH, would be huge.

Indeed, though it also would not be difinitive.
40 posted on 02/22/2010 10:52:22 AM PST by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson