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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
To: Sopater
Indeed, though it also would not be difinitive. I would have to argue otherwise. While may not represent be the exact process, it clearly demonstrates that such processes are possible.
41
posted on
02/22/2010 10:59:35 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: r9etb
While may not represent be the exact process, it clearly demonstrates that such processes are possible.
Yes it would, but would not by any means rule out all other possibilities. Including possiblities that would perhaps be even better demonstrated through natural processes, but not yet considered. Hence, it would not be "difinitive". I do however concede that it would be huge. ;-)
42
posted on
02/22/2010 11:26:51 AM PST
by
Sopater
(...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
To: r9etb
My ... admittedly limited ... understanding is that Haldane's theory turned out to be faulty because whatever complex molecules would have been created would have quickly disintegrated in the 'soup'.
There were later theories involving clay matrices where complex molecules could form and link together before being reduced.
My understanding is that the microscopic holes through which the sulfur compounds are jetted are a key ingredient in the first steps of abiogenesis.
They may act in a similar way to that proposed for clay matrices: a place for partial compounds to adhere to until the molecules are developed and stable enough to survive the 'soup'.
To: Sopater; metmom; GodGunsGuts
These guys and/or anybody else with similar thoughts at least have testable ideas; they need to take whatever they think was involved in the way of chemistry and create some sterile test environment with hot vents and those chemicals in a lab and see if they can come up with simple life forms.
Moreover they should provide the public with a way to put down bets as to which way it turns out...
To: wendy1946
Moreover they should provide the public with a way to put down bets as to which way it turns out...
An excellent source of funding. Simply bet against yourself. ;-)
45
posted on
02/22/2010 2:21:23 PM PST
by
Sopater
(...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
To: metmom
Of course, its totally irrelevant that the current theory has holes big enough in it to drive a truck through. Every theory is subject to disproof. What evidence do you submit?
46
posted on
02/22/2010 2:30:30 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
We could start with the fact that nobody KNOWS what conditions were like when life allegedly arose and nobody knows what the mechanism was that caused the first molecules to form and remain.
47
posted on
02/22/2010 3:04:52 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom
We could start with the fact that nobody KNOWS what conditions were like when life allegedly arose and nobody knows what the mechanism was that caused the first molecules to form and remain.How does that disprove the theory? If we knew those things, there wouldn't be any need to theorize about them. You seem to be expecting to establish a Catch-22 that says you can't theorize until you already know.
48
posted on
02/22/2010 3:08:53 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; metmom
The evolutionists elevate their theory’s and worship them as reality. What I say to them is just dont expect everyone else to.
49
posted on
02/22/2010 3:27:44 PM PST
by
valkyry1
To: valkyry1
To: valkyry1
The evolutionists elevate their theorys and worship them as reality. What I say to them is just dont expect everyone else to.And I say to you if you want a fair hearing of your side, you should bring something to the table other that a bucket of perjoroatives.
51
posted on
02/22/2010 3:30:01 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: EnderWiggins
52
posted on
02/22/2010 3:32:52 PM PST
by
bvw
To: tacticalogic
What is pejorative there to you, did you take it personal? Do you deny that evolutionists elevate their theorys and worship them as reality?
53
posted on
02/22/2010 3:47:31 PM PST
by
valkyry1
To: valkyry1
What is pejorative there to you, did you take it personal? Do you deny that evolutionists elevate their theorys and worship them as reality?Are you wanting an emotional resonse so you can start a flame war? You can't have it.
54
posted on
02/22/2010 3:50:27 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; metmom
No I was just trying to get you to back up your claim, obviously you are not going to do that.
In any event, the evolutionists 80-Year old theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life was as much junk then as it is now.
55
posted on
02/22/2010 3:56:27 PM PST
by
valkyry1
To: valkyry1
No I was just trying to get you to back up your claim, obviously you are not going to do that.I challenge you to show me the claim that I have made that I cannot back up. If you cannot do that, then you've made unfounded accusations.
56
posted on
02/22/2010 3:59:43 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Next is that the whole origins consideration isn’t science to begin with.
It’s philosophy.
Nobody was there to observe it. It can’t be tested on. It hasn’t been repeatable.
Assembling molecules in the lab qualifies as science, but is not terribly relevant to the origins debate.
Nobody knows for sure what conditions were like. They’re presumed based on what scientists think they needed to be in order for x,y,z to happen.
That’s not science, that’s guessing.
57
posted on
02/22/2010 4:08:26 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: tacticalogic; valkyry1
It looks like he has it already.
You are way overreacting.
58
posted on
02/22/2010 4:11:17 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom
Next is that the whole origins consideration isnt science to begin with.There has been no explanation as to how "First" constituted a disproof, or established any "holes" in the theory, truck-sized or otherwise. So far "Next" promises to be no more substantial.
59
posted on
02/22/2010 4:11:34 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; valkyry1
I challenge you to show me the claim that I have made that I cannot back up. Anyone can see that. The claim that he brought to the table "a bucket of perjoratives."
What were they all?
60
posted on
02/22/2010 4:13:54 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson