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"

Comments

This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[aslate]

Only if argued at the same critical and scientific level, and not argued on the "It's written here, so it's true" logic.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[king-manic]

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
-----------------------
as is the theory of creation, both should be equally taken in with an open mind, and studied carefully.
-----------------------

Gravity is actually just a theory too, the whole law thing is just a name. So should consider non-gravity as a equal theory? How about the theory the earth is round, it's onyl a theory after all. Perfectly valid explanations of how it's "flat but all the evidence to the contrary is faked" also exist, should we consider both of the equally?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mrRay720]

I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!

I find it much more reasonable to believe that this awesome universe evolved exactly the way it did than that some mythical guy called God snapped his fingers and it all, like, happened dude! Funny how we both believe different, contradictary, things. It's almost as if beliefs mean crap all... I guess we have to fall back on that tried and true method of applying logic and evidence to the situation. What evidence do you have? Some crusty old multitranslated book written by some random people? Well I guess you win...

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Bullfish]

Well, duh... it does contain information about evolution, it was published by a university, by scientists and their ilk. It boggles my mind that in the 21rst century, on the internet, in a place where people with a grasp of science come to dialogue, that we have to wade through crap posted by the superstitious defending their mythology. Of course, people try to argue with them from a scientific basis while they just go "no, no, non. blah, blah, blah, with their fingers in their ears.

You want to believe, fine, believe, you want to hand out tract literature showing how unless everybody follows your beliefs that a disembodied thumb will squish you into the ground, fine, but stick to your own kind. Go on a picnic, it is a beautiful Saturn's Day outside. Bring along some books to burn so you can toast your wafers.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are trying to be funny... However, `evolution`, or what ever you want to call it is a theorem, not a theory. You can prove it happens based on some simple axioms. The only thing you can argue about is timescales. (Which is what modern biologists are doing: "Is evolution proceding uniformly, or does it happen in bursts?", for example.)

In case anyone is interested, the axioms are:

1) Parents have children.
2) Children tend to look like their parents.
3) Mutations happen. i.e. children do not always inherit all their traits from their parents.
4) Organisms are different
5) Such differences yield to different probabilities for a given organism to survive and reproduce.
6) More children are born than survive to adulthood.

The proof goes as follows: Given a distribution of 'fitness' for a population, given by axioms 4 and 5 we can calculate which 'parents' will survive to have 'children' (that some do is axiom 1). From axiom 6, many children will be born, and from axiom 2 those children will be like their parents. From this you can calculate the new distribution of 'fitness'. Noting that it will be different due to axioms 6 and 5 (ignoring singular cases where everyone has the same fitness), gives the initial stages of evolution. Now, for evolution to continue, you need new variation (infinite inbreeding is bad, the population tends to a set of clones, and the singular case above is the result), so axiom 3 is needed to fix that.

Now, it is even possible to prove that the axioms happen.

For each axiom:
1) Obvious, really.
2) If you don't believe this, then you are an idiot. :-) i.e. People `tend` to give birth to people, not other animals and plants.
3) You need a little science for this one, but it is possible to sequence DNA, and show mistakes happen.
4) Obvious, really.
5) This one can be measured as well. For example albino tigers have trouble surviving in the wild since they have trouble hiding.
6) I know one class mate who died before adulthood, and that one example is enough to prove this one.

Done! Well... if you want more, you can start doing mathematical models of the various axioms. You can try different mathematical functions for axioms 4 and 5 and see how the different results affect the timescales involved.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MightyMartian]

It really helps that you first of all not bunch up or confuse several different theories that have damn little in common. If you wish to believe in magic, go for it, but I for one am very interested in how things happened, not in simply handwaving the entirety of existence as some sort of unknowable act of Providence, because that is about as anti-knowledge as anything could be.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[abirdman]

The fact that evolution is a theory does not make creationism anything besides a middle eastern myth from ~3500 years ago, probably dreamed up (at least written down) by clerics trying to keep order among a peasant and slave class, passed to our time through a sketchy set of translations, and believed now by simpletons and Republicans. I can't stand when some Bible-beating dork states that, because creationism can't be proved, then any cockamamie story his grandmother told him is just as likely to be true. Crap, I say! Creationism isn't science, it's literature. Get over it.

Uhh REALLY???

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?

In the post...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere is used by terroists!

Re:In the post...

[GreyWolf3000]

While I regret that a new slashdot mad-lib joke has just been created, I think it would be funnier if it read, "In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere could be used by terrorists!" It fits more with the paranoia.

Was this intentional?

[sam_handelman]

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.

Oil Companies

[Thakandar2]

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.

Who says religion polarizes people?

[sqrt(2)]

I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database :D

CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic church says evolution is a fact. Your "disclaimer" post is blasphemy!

Read, you blasphemous heretic.

Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[coma_bug]

From your link:

If, therefore, a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.

This is complete bullshit. I am amazed how many times religious people sprinkle this kind of magic pixie dust to produce a holier-than-thou philosophy. The steps in the process are:

(1) identify something that we cannot possibly know one way or another (for example, the origin of the universe, or free will vs. determinism).
(2) pronounce some spiritual hocus pocus to answer the problem.
(3) ignore the fact that the spiritual answer suffers the same problem.
(4) take tithes from the ignorant.
(5) profit!

In this particular case, free will vs. determinism is not answered by postulating the existance of a soul because that "answer" suffers *exactly* the same problem: maybe thoughts move throught the soul in a deterministic way.

Much the same can be said for the cosmological (first cause) argument.

Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Rams�s Morales]

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.

Who needs stickers?

[mattbot 5000]

Who needs stickers, just mod it down. The Bible, -1 Overrated since time immemorial.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[MightyMartian]

As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made.

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.