Primordial Soup Cannot Tolerate Salt

Dear Anne,Sorry, for upsetting you. What you said, however, neatly fitted in my previous discussion in which I demonstrated that --since evolution can never be proven-- it has no more validity than a believe system. And the evidence you are talking about is no evidence for evolution, it is evidence for variation, probably already present in the genome (in the form of genetic redundancies). I try to convey this new ideas for several weeks now, since I do not like scientific consensus. Consensus is stasis, and will never yield anything. Why copy one opinion while there are many others?best wishes,
peter

I know there are other theories out there... however, the primordial soup theory is the main evolutionist model right now and taught in almost every school. Now, you are talking about numerous problems with my idea. What idea are you talking about? What I posted was just about how organic molecules cannot survive in salty water. Experimentally provable. So this is just further evidence that the primordial soup theory is wrong.

And since you don't know, your belief in the occurrence of abiogenesis is but faith that it occurred.

How about this then?

quote:

---

But when life first appeared around 3.5 billion years ago, the ocean was much saltier than it is today. Estimates of the early ocean's salinity range between 1.2 to 2 times present-day salinity.

---

--Salt of the Early Earth

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear anne,

​

You confirm what I deduced, that evolutionism is a religion based on believe:

​

QUOTE:
"I do not believe that the organisms of today could live in eons ago, nor vice versa. I BELIEVE the organism evolved to fit their surroundings."

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

Thus speaks the creationist...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Anne,

​

Sorry, for upsetting you. What you said, however, neatly fitted in my previous discussion in which I demonstrated that --since evolution can never be proven-- it has no more validity than a believe system. And the evidence you are talking about is no evidence for evolution, it is evidence for variation, probably already present in the genome (in the form of genetic redundancies). I try to convey this new ideas for several weeks now, since I do not like scientific consensus. Consensus is stasis, and will never yield anything. Why copy one opinion while there are many others?

​

best wishes,
peter

---

I look forward to reading the Peter B. theory of life. Once it has been proven, of course...

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
And since you don't know, your belief in the occurrence of abiogenesis is but faith that it occurred.

---

I have no real opinion on abiogenesis to begin with since it is currently unknowable how life actually got started on Earth. It could be god, or it could have been the Big Blue Banana for all we know. At least the scientists are looking for a rational explaination instead of "Puff, GOD DID IT!".

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
I know there are other theories out there... however, the primordial soup theory is the main evolutionist model right now and taught in almost every school. Now, you are talking about numerous problems with my idea. What idea are you talking about? What I posted was just about how organic molecules cannot survive in salty water. Experimentally provable. So this is just further evidence that the primordial soup theory is wrong.

---

Evolution has nothing to do with how life got started.

quote:

---

Evolution has nothing to do with how life got started.

---

Didn't I say that before?

quote:

---

This relates to abiogenesis, not evolution.

---

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-25-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Evolution has nothing to do with how life got started.

---

​

Didn't I say that before?

quote:

---

This relates to abiogenesis, not evolution.

---

JM: I'll repeat this. The article you cited says life may have originated in fresh water. This refutes your earlier claim that scientists have only a single possible place for life to evolve. Personally, I've heard salt water, fresh water, deep-sea vents, and panspermia all discussed. I am merely taking you to task for misrepresenting the views of modern science on abiogenesis by insisting that oceans are viewed as the only viable location for life to have originated. You should also re-read the most recent link you gave me. Seems as if you only pick out the parts you like.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 09-25-2002][Deleted extraneous quote. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

​

Evolution has nothing to do with how life got started.

​

Didn't I say that before?

​

This relates to abiogenesis, not evolution.

---

Then why bring this up?"the primordial soup theory is the main 'evolutionist' model right now and taught in almost every school."[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-25-2002]

nos482 writes:

---

"the primordial soup theory is the main 'evolutionist' model right now and taught in almost every school."

---

This might have been true at one time, but is certainly not the case today.In an ideal world schools would teach views current within science, but we do not live in an ideal world. It is not uncommon for schools to teach outmoded views, especially since many of today's science teachers were probably taught the primordial soup view back when they were in school.It makes sense to lament the long time period it can take before new scientific developments make their way into textbooks and classrooms. It makes no sense at all to insist that an outmoded view is still the view of science when that is clearly not the case. That the outmoded view is still taught in some schools is unfortunate but irrelevant to this discussion.The possibility getting the most attention these days is that life originated on or near undersea vents.--Percy

Ok, so you are willing to throw out the rest of the evidence, just to confirm that evolution is a belief. Ok, let's do away with archeology, and palentology, and the rest of the dating system.Evolution cannot be proven you are right, but it does not mean someday it will be proven. You are right, everything that we know and everything that we do, come off a perferential belief THAT IS BASED ON EVIDENCE.So, by your argument, belief in gravity is unfounded, since we cannot reproduce gravity. Consensus is not static, it is dynamic with new discoveries. Guess gravity is a bunch of boloney.Your argument is more of a philosophical slant than more scientific. Philosophical beliefs belong in the Magesterium of Religion, they have no place in science. [not all beliefs]------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

How do we know we can reproduce the conditions as they were on ancient earth. We are not 100% sure we are doing so.So by this, can we not leave open the possiblity of primordial soup happening. Do not get me started in probabilities.We cannot be sure of any experiments that we do with 100% certainity.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Ok, I am open to life being formed in fresh water also, We need more research that is evident before we can reedit science.I am not that close-minded as some think. Good site, plan to peruse it at my leisure.And yes, I believe the site had logic.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day