Revolutionary New Theory For Origins Of Life On Earth

UK Royal Society ^ | 12/4/2002 | Professor William Martin, Institut fuer Botanik III, University of Dusseldorf and Dr Michael Russell

[Bonaparte]

"...life first, cells second..."

Uh huh...

[Nebullis]

Thanks, forsnax5!

The related news story in Nature Science Update is fun as well.

"I think it's a beautiful thing - it's important to have all-embracing theories," says evolutionary biologist Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. We'll never have much definite information on the origin of life, he says. "But then, just because we'll never know why the Roman Empire fell doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about."

[AmericaUnited]

living systems originated from inorganic incubators - small compartments in iron sulphide rocks.

A great scientific mystery has been solved!!!

Why so many people seem to have "rocks" in their heads.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Junior]

Of course you know that Pope Gore MMM refuted this theory even before it was proposed, don't you?

[colorado tanker]

Iron sulphide(sulfide) AKA Fool's Gold. Guy Fawkes Day (British April Fools Day) is November 5. What's the date of this paper?

[f.Christian]

"They have... lost---a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

[beckett]

I must have missed the part where they explained why the theory cannot be reduced to a laboratory experiment. That's a very important feature of these stories. This one sounds like it's good for the "too many eons of time required" exemption.

[AndrewC]

I must have missed the part where they explained why the theory cannot be reduced to a laboratory experiment.

Here's the reason why. It is not science, at least according to many here. That is due to the "hypothesis" being immune to falsifiability.---

It may be that no theory is going to fit all the evidence. The trick is to pick which bits to ignore, says John Raven of the University of Dundee, UK. "To create a coherent hypothesis we have to say 'this bit of data doesn't fit, but we're going ahead anyway'."

Oops! You say the evidence doesn't support it... Just ignore it.

[AndrewC]

Whoever told you that was playing a Guy Fawkes day joke on you.

Maybe they meant the night before GF day.

Before You Can Celebrate the 5th You must have Mischief Night on the 4th!

Is this true?

[colorado tanker]

If you're interested, I'm trying to sell a bridge....... I know, you're going to tell me Tower Bridge is London Bridge and you can sell it to me. I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a London Bridge today . . .

C'mon plenty of tomfoolery goes on around Fawkes day, despite its serious origins.

[Tom Thomson]

One word says it all... "Unbelievable!"/P
It is truly amazing... When you look at these people who come up with these totally stupied theories, they look completely normal. One would never realize by looking at them that they are missing the logic component in their brains.

[job]

It's the sulphides that tear you up . . . you usually associated with mexican food or vietnamese food

[Junior]

Why's this theory "stupid?" Looks like the guy put forth a plausible hypothesis, and, as he is an expert in his field, I'm sure he knows a bit more about the subject than you.

[AndrewC]

Looks like the guy put forth a plausible hypothesis, and, as he is an expert in his field, I'm sure he knows a bit more about the subject than you.

You are being overly generous in the opinion of this person(from the Nature link provided by Nebullis)----

Others disagree. "It's quite impossible that it could be right," says evolutionary biologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith of the University of Oxford, UK. Bacteria and archaebacteria have got hundreds of genes in common, he says. They share other features, such as the way that they insert proteins into their membranes.

Plausible and impossible are, shall we say, discordant.

[Junior]

Your quote doesn't make your point. It appears the guy quoted is agreeing with me.

[AndrewC]

Okay, you must have a personal reading of Others disagree. "It's quite impossible that it could be right.."

[Junior]

Tired old eyes. I misread it as "quite possible." I need to see an optometrist.

BTW, there is an old adage about scientists claiming something is "impossible" ...

[PatrickHenry]

Ah, now you've permitted the start of a mini-thread of at least 300 posts, debating about whether one guy's quote says what you claim it says, and all the while the thrust of the lead article gets ignored in the resulting dustcloud.