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
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!
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 .
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.
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.
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
(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)
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?