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.
1 posted on
02/22/2010 8:13:18 AM PST by
Sopater
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Sopater
.
No one should ever take these types of “theories” seriously.
It should never be confused with science which is verifiable and practical.
To: Sopater
4 posted on
02/22/2010 8:22:39 AM PST by
Zakeet
(Patches Kennedy isn't running for Congress again for medical reasons -- voters are sick of him)
To: Sopater
If this new proposal is new, why is it on the Biology DVDs I bought for my daughter two years ago?
5 posted on
02/22/2010 8:23:41 AM PST by
Mr Rogers
(I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
To: Sopater
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.
6 posted on
02/22/2010 8:26:12 AM PST by
onedoug
To: Sopater
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 ?
7 posted on
02/22/2010 8:28:32 AM PST by
tlb
To: Sopater
Primordial soup, LOL! Everyone knows it was clam chowder.
8 posted on
02/22/2010 8:31:11 AM PST by
HerrBlucher
(Jail Al Gore and the Climate Frauds!)
To: Sopater
![]( http://whs.wsd.wednet.edu/Faculty/Cloke/images/FrankensteinMovie.jpg?)
Power, I need more power!
9 posted on
02/22/2010 8:32:45 AM PST by
dblshot
(Insanity - electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)
To: Sopater
Sopater, Science said the soup scene science seemed settled so now the soup has soured?
10 posted on
02/22/2010 8:38:25 AM PST by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Sopater
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.
To: Sopater
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
To: Sopater
This new “explanation” is no better than the primordial soup one.
To: Sopater
"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."
To: Sopater
Geesh. If you REALLY want to know how life was created, just ask someone that was there.
![](http://www.observer.com/files/collage_large/helenthomas.jpg)
15 posted on
02/22/2010 8:50:16 AM PST by
scoobysnak71
(I'm light skinned with no negro dialect. Could you milk me?)
To: Sopater
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.
To: Sopater
"No soup for you!"
18 posted on
02/22/2010 9:01:11 AM PST by
reagan_fanatic
(The liberals are asking us to give Obama more time. Is 25 to life enough?)
To: Sopater
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).
20 posted on
02/22/2010 9:31:16 AM PST by
campaignPete R-CT
("pray without ceasing" - Paul of Tarsus)
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!!!)
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.)
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: Sopater
"Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics..." Notable that they start life from the remains of.......Life?
This is like the old desert emergency water kit: Drop this pill into a jar of water.... oops!
71 posted on
02/22/2010 4:30:08 PM PST by
editor-surveyor
(Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson