Posted on 02/22/2010 8:13:17 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
I would have to argue otherwise. While may not represent be the exact process, it clearly demonstrates that such processes are possible.
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'.
Moreover they should provide the public with a way to put down bets as to which way it turns out...
Every theory is subject to disproof. What evidence do you submit?
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.
The evolutionists elevate their theory’s and worship them as reality. What I say to them is just dont expect everyone else to.
You are projecting.
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.
He’s an honest Freeper scientist. See
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2457008/posts?page=33#33
That is, he’s right. My own proven theory shows he is correct.
You lose, ender-redux, scientifically speaking.
What is pejorative there to you, did you take it personal? Do you deny that evolutionists elevate their theory’s and worship them as reality?
Are you wanting an emotional resonse so you can start a flame war? You can't have it.
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.
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.
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.
It looks like he has it already.
You are way overreacting.
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.
Anyone can see that. The claim that he brought to the table "a bucket of perjoratives."
What were they all?
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.