Slashdot Mirror
Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life
mathinator writes "A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life. The paper was authored by doctoral student Feng Tian, Prof. Owen Toon and Research Associate Alexander Pavlov of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and by Prof. Hans De Sterk of University of Waterloo's Applied Mathematics department. The paper was published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine"
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered
But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?
In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere is used by terroists!
It appears the posted versiond oesn't mention that it was a collaboration between University of Waterloo and University of Colorado at Boulder. The only researcher in Waterloo was Prof Hans De Sterck. Just like to make sure that is clear
DUH!
Else would we be here.
In a post 9/11 world, a study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its current condition probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many terrorists think about how to destroy life on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for explosive reactions, death compounds, and ultimately, the destruction of life.
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Can anyone tell me how many times these high and mighty evolution scientists have already backpedalled and changed their version of the truth to fit some new finding? I've already lost the count... pathetic, really.
Gosh.... yeah, it's awful how scientists are always changing their mind on encountering new data.
If we had any guts, we'd still believe in ether.
I don't think the parent is really a creationist at all; it's an anonymous coward trolling by pretending to be a creationist, providing a particularly easy straw man argument for us to knock down.
Which is utterly mysterious because there are plenty of authentic nutcases on slashdot.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
The oil companies exterminated these early lifeforms because the companies didn't want hydrogen powered cars getting fuel out of the air.
By killing these early life forms, the companies guaranteed future fossil fuels and thir grip on our present day driving habits.
to make sure the late Earth atmosphere is not.
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
Since 99%+ of known free matter in the universe is hydrogen, and the solar system formed out of... mostly hydrogen... is this really a surprise? I'd actually be shocked to find out that there WASN'T that much hydrogen in the atmosphere when things kicked off. This is like putting out a newsflash "We found something in the middle of the ocean - AND IT WAS WET!!!"
I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database :D
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
The Catholic church says evolution is a fact. Your "disclaimer" post is blasphemy!
Read, you blasphemous heretic.
From the summary, it seems that these researchers are now saying that the upper atmosphere was cooler than originally thought, thus atmospheric hydrogen escaped at a slower rate. So these researchers are essentially using a mathematical climate model.
Climate science is very difficult even when we have the actual system to study (modern earth). How can we with any certainty at all know what that system performed like 4 billion years ago? It's time we admit that this research is interesting, but it will always be just speculation backed up data with an amazing depth of variability that is arrived at by making many assumptions.
Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
So I guess you really weren't trying to be funny.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Lots of people seem to be complaining about how science "got it wrong" and how we should all change our religious beliefs because of this.
I always thought this was how science worked. Come up with a theory which fits the data, and if new data comes in then change the theory. It would be stupid if they believed something when they had evidence to the contrary.
Einstein was atheist, sometimes scientist say god, speaking metaphorically. Einstein said:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
And by the way, what purpose will it serve to teach people lies? Even if they are not going to study science, they have to be tought facts, not lies. If you keep a population ignorant, they'll be easilly manipulated. As an example, I'm not a biochemist, I'm a Computer Scientist, but all the Organic Chemsitry I learned in high school has been very helpful in my life, to improve my nutrition, and hormonal profile, as part of my goal to be faster and stronger. It has also been helpful to identify all the crap about nutrition and health popular media barfs.
...that the atmosphere immediately before the extinction of life on this planet will not be favourable.
Heck, we live in a window of opportunity on this planet. It started when conditions became favourable and it'll end when they become unfavourable, or we blow ourselves up... which after careful thought is pretty much the same thing.
All things considered though, I suppose it's nice that they've found out a bit more about conditions then, but maybe the title of their study should've been a more accurate:
Early Earth atmosphere more favourable to life than we first thought .
objective proof -> compelling, reproducible evidence
There, that's better.
Doesn't follow. Still lots of faith in that post. Let's take a look at it:
Rene Descartes says we're imperfect. Completely agreed.
How can we conceive a perfect being? We don't. The christian god is an arrogant, angry being that makes his followers suffer. He's self contradictory in parts, and in the old testament just plain horrific. So, no, don't agree.
"Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us". Yes, of course, according to the opinion of some guy that died 355 years ago, God would never deceive us. Never mind that I wonder where he got the authority to say what God will do and won't do (surely that's blasphemy), after all those years who knows what he actually said. Don't agree.
"God is Truth" - completely nonsensical religious statement. Ignored.
"And that is where all human suffering origniates from.". So, how is that not faith when you make your conclusions from a book that provides no proof or evidence?
"As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable". Very debatable. God is simply a human invention. And why your God, anyway, and not Zeus?
In any case, I disagree. I'd say that suffering noticeably decreased in our less religious times. Since we stopped believing that we'd be cured if we prayed hard enough we actually made some very nice advances in medicine - which were of course made at the cost of having to deal with opposition, and having to do research by digging out corpses from graves.
Who needs stickers, just mod it down. The Bible, -1 Overrated since time immemorial.
And I'm amazed that those 970 people don't see that all life on earth is completely ruled by Nature's (read God's, if you prefer) laws. Tornadoes in tornado alley sweep churches away, just like the other houses. If they're built stronger, as determined by material sciences, they stand a better chance. God loves science! God loves engineers! Only their wishes are granted!
And I'm flabbergasted that people deny evolution when it flies right into their face, literally (flies resistant to DDT, for example). What are they going to do when they end up in heaven: Yell at God because he was so smart that he could set things off with a single big bang? Are they going to blame him for not telling explicity to use that 3 pound/1.5 kilo of brains and use their eyes and senses? I'd be mightly embarrassed if I made it to heaven and a good dose of sceptisism had brought me to creationism or intelligent design. If you want to see God, study nature. It is the only place he shows the wonders he created. And accept they way he created things, not how you'd like them to be created or how you're parents/educators told you how he created it.
You're relying for biology and physics on one page of some 2k old book, instead of your own eyes, senses, brains and the gigantic knowledgebase present in the science libraries? A book that self-admits that it isn't the word of god? With 4 different versions by Pete, John, Luke, what more proof do you want that it is humans who wrote that stuff down? Not only are there differences, but even the authors are mentioned by name!
I love religions, because they are so funny. Their disciples have an almighty god, but just for certainty's sake, the disciples must take matters in their own hand. And they fill the newspapers, like 9/11, start a war in Irak, and all that, realising at least the hell part of their belief.
On one thing we agree: I think it is more than likely that we will not fully understand everything. Heck, I even don't get the relativity theory. But one thing I know. If you're looking for truth of what is happening in Nature, don't pick a book with Y2K problems.
PS While you're at it, start reading the Koran. After two failed attempts (thora and bible), the Koran is the latest and greatest of this best selling author. It is 100% true, according to its disciples. Don't forget, Jews, Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god (evidence can be found in the author's books. For example, they all have Abraham talking to the author.)
where the hell did the cosmic egg/big bang come from?
;)
Perhaps this isn't exactly what you mean, but one good answer to the question "what existed before the Big Bang" (and one that makes me feel comfortable) is that, if you regard Big Bang as the beginning of Time itself, "before the Big Bang" is inherently nonsensical, and thus this is an illogical question to ask.
I believe Stephen Hawking mentioned this in (probably more than) one of his books; immediately after giving this argument, he parallelled it to what St. Augustine said when someone asked him what God was doing before he created the Universe: "he was creating hell, for those who ask too many questions".
Score: i, Imaginary
your attempt at reconciliation is almost admirable but it's totally misguided.
here's a good reason why from the Creationist point of view things must be "static", and why you can't stick the scientific "Big Bang" into the 6-day creation story: the bible says nothing about astronomical phenomena as we understand them today. the official written account of creation says ZIP about anything we have learned about the cosmos: hydrogen fusion, the structure of our planet, structure of our solar system, galaxies, stars, the SPEED OF THE [STAR]LIGHT that we see in the sky, etc.
not to mention the fact that the bible says NOTHING that a wiseman goat-herder would/could have known 2,000 years ago. nothing about biology, germs, nothing about the entire WESTERN HEMISPHERE-- which was full of interesting people, unbeknownst to the smartest most "prophetic" people of biblical times.
are we supposed to believe that humans simply purged these aspects from God's Word, or that god himself simply chose to "dumb it down" for humanity?
people had no freaking clue what the "heavens" even were, 2000 years ago.
and all the bible's tips about human folly and human relationships certainly don't constitute "divine" information.
only the VAGUEST notions of Evolution and Creation can be "compatible" in the way you're attempting. yeah: bla bla bla, hey, the BigBang was actually the Creation!!!
no, nice try. the 6-day story says nothing about the physical changes that our planet (and any planet) undergo: geological changes, etc etc. maybe you haven't noticed, but the account of creation in the bible LITERALLY/UNEQUIVOCALLY does NOT expound on any long time-scale, not for physical-geological evolution, nor for biological evolution. you'd think that god might have made some passing mention of this, since he was going through the trouble of giving ANY explanation at all, right? (i suppose he works in mysterious ways; humans couldn't handle the absurd truth; bla bla bla)
you're making a foolish mistake. "if you're in the evolution camp, where did the Big-Bang come from?" that's an old, tired argument. you're basically saying that since we CANNOT ANSWER (right now; maybe not ever) the question of where the Big-Bang "came from" or how it got initiated, THEREFORE it must have been god.
that's totally foolish. it's not a folly that's very becoming of somebody living in the 21st century. wake up. smell the coffee. science is a project, an enterprise. we have a single vantage point in time and space: planet Earth, recent times. so you see it's kind of hard to really figure out the big astronomical/cosmological questions from this vantage point. aside from the practical obstacles, the concepts and events in question do not accord with our normal, human, earth-bound notions of matter, reality, physics, and so on.
and you have yet to define "intelligent." it's a vague, useless, fluffy statement to say "BOTH SIDES are filled with intelligent people." even apart from that word "intelligent", the word "filled" is pretty contentious.
you're also demonstrating absolute cultural ignorance and discrimination: other so-called religions have their own accounts of creation, with nothing about "6 days." it's idiotic to suggest we should equate the astronomical BigBang with the "6 days", since in this vague/useless model you're proposing, we're simply talking about an omnipotent creator or a divine creation, NOT about the specific mythological tenets of christianity.
you're ignorant. i mean that in the best possible way. most people who try to reconcile evolution Vs creation are only familiar with the vaguest outlines of either "position". try getting an education, in both theology and science. it will do you good.
As opposed to what? I mean, the misery that humanity suffered so often really didn't start to be dealt with until the Enlightenment. Christianity specifically, and religion in general, had had thousands of years to do its part, but it wasn't until humanist philosophers and political theorists came along that suddenly we saw some real interest in making life better. All Christianity had done up until that point was to be used as an apologetic for tyrants of various types (popes, kings, princes and emperors) to do whatever they wanted. Even the chief Protestant himself, Luther, had little or no sympathy for the average peasant in Europe at the time.
At least secular society gives us some hope of living together despite religious differences. I doubt very much you would like to live in the alternative. I know myself that I would hate to live at the sufferance of the faithful, who might accept my own lack of belief in their deity today, but tomorrow might decide to revoke that acceptance.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The problem with Fundamentalism is that it takes God--which represents the most ethical part of us--and makes him less ethical than we ought to be.
The most ethical part of myself believes in tolerance for all, yet the God of the fundamentalists will torture everyone who has a different belief system, and condones anti-Gay prejudice. The most ethical part of myself believes in having an open mind, yet the God of the Fundamentalists believes in stubbornly believing that the Earth was created 6,000 (6 thousand, non-Americans) years ago despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
I have no problem with the majority of Jesus' teachings, including the ones that Fundamentalists ignore (e.g. Like 12:15 "One's life does not consist in the abundance of one's posessions"). I have a lot of problems with modern fundamentalism, that takes a God which respresents perfect love (1 John 4:13), and makes Him something which is less than perfect love (Intolerance towards non-Christians, intolerance against Gays, and intolerance against Science).
This is why I don't go to church today.
Either way, the Church does not state that any of it is true, only that parts of it are *possibly* true
to be fair, technically science says that too.
I've heard plenty of different version of "God's story." Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. And then there are non-Christian religions which have totally different version's of "God's story." A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.
I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better. Out of a high school graduation class of 1000, how many will go on to a career in science? Say that 700 of them go on to college and that 300 go into the work force. Of the 700, 100 decide they want to major in physics or chemistry. Of them 70 get weeded out. You now have 30 people who will continue. The other 970 people will be better served with an education that focuses on creationism.
Ahh, so that's it. It isn't really about the truth. Tt is about what people need to know or what YOU think will serve them better. I have a better idea. Lets teach people to seek the truth and give the best known facts. At least that would be honest. You are talking about manipulating people.
We are living in a time with relative ethics.
Name a time when ethics were absolute and didn't vary widely between cultures and individuals. Do you mean Biblical times when people were stoned to death for adultery?
We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
As opposed to when? Biblical times where people were, again, stoned to death for petty crimes? And whole cities were struck down by a vengeful God? How do you account for the fact that most modern societies today have abolished capital punishment? Really, I think yoiu are projecting your cynicism and disillusionment more than describing the way things are or where they are headed. You are romanticizing the past.
We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
Actually, many watched in relief as a severely brain damaged woman was allowed to die. Depends on how you look at it.
That never should have happened, in the light that there is information that her husband might have beat her the night she collapsed, and the uncertainty of her wishes.
What shouldn't have happened is that the story should never have made the news. It should never have made it to congress. It was a private matter and I am appalled that people like felt you needed to make it your business. I know you think you have some clue about the situation, but you don't.
Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God, he was quoted as saying "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details".
They believed in God and yet they didn't believe in Creation. Why do you tihnk that was? Actually, the original sciensts did believe in creation until they started investigating the natural world and found that it couldn't have been created as "God's story" says.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
"'Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us'. Yes, of course, according to the opinion of some guy that died 355 years ago, God would never deceive us. "
Actually, Descartes asserted that because his senses could be deceived, that perhaps nothing was real. In asserting that, however, he proved the existence of his own mind. From there, he concluded that since he was able to learn and be deceived, that something more complete or more perfect existed.
From there, Descartes lays the groundwork for the scientific method we (should) know and love. Philosophy has always been a search for truth, and as such has given us our modern machine for truth: science. And just as Descartes was concerned with the omnipotent and omniscient, scientists today still seek the truth about the only omnipotence and omniscience in the universe: Nature. The conception of God has since the beginnings of Philosophy been synonymous with our current word Nature. However, the use of God in the christian faith (written by philosophers for the purpose of morals, law, and order) has perverted our sense for the word.
(From the UW article)
I have a question for the abiogenesis advocates on this forum. When was Miller's experiment NOT relevant? Toon says the experiments are relevant *again*; that implies they weren't relevant at some time in the past. When was that?
Of course, I don't ask the question without knowing the answer. I also ask it because it points out a significant flaw in the way we teach abiogenesis theory. The answer to my question is, Miller's experiments were rendered moot several DECADES ago, when all the models pointed to early Earth having an oxygenating atmosphere. No one ever has come up with a model or scenario that would give early Earth the required reducing atmosphere that would make Miller's experiment relevant. But, every time I have pointed this out to evolutionists/abiogenesis advocates over the last 2 decades (and I have done so several times in the last 20 years), they have uniformly denied its significance.
This continues the characteristic that I find universally in the evolutionary community. They refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their accepted evolutionary model until after they believe they have a solution to those flaws.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
...when the atmosphere had lots of both H2 and O2 would have been, well, a blast.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That's a pretty strong statement for a mere simulation. Are we going back to the mythology of the ancient Greek "scientists," who believed that truth could only be found by reason, not by experiments? If not, then we need some experimental results showing that early Earth had a reducing atmosphere. It's nice that these models say our atmosphere was mostly hydrogen; but, if they are correct, there had to have been a physical record created by this environment. There must be an explanation for the lack of evidence supporting the model in the rocks we examine. Otherwise, the UW theory is just wishful thinking that you have latched onto too eagerly.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
"We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death."
I hear you, Brother!
And didn't we both look on in disbelief when Pope John Paul the Second died, instead of entering a persistent vegetative state?
Terrible.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
No, he really didn't.
Or even better...
Of course, Christians like to repeat the lie that Einstein believed in their particular god. You're not one of those lying Christians, are you?