Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Are Cracking the Primordial Soup Mystery
derekmead writes "Scientists have had a basic understanding of how life first popped up on Earth for a while. The so-called 'primordial soup' was sitting around, stagnant but containing the basic building blocks of life. Then something happened and we ended up with life. It's that 'something' that has been the sticking point for scientists, but new research from a team of scientists at the University of Leeds has started to shed light on the mystery, explaining just how objects from space might have kindled the reaction that sparked life on Earth. It's generally accepted that space rocks played an important role in life's genesis on Earth. Meteorites bombarding the planet early in its history delivered some of the necessary materials for life but none brought life as we know it. How inanimate rocks transformed into the building blocks of life has been a mystery. But this latest research suggests an answer. If meteorites containing phosphorus landed in the hot, acidic pools that surrounded young volcanoes on the early Earth, there could have been a reaction that produced a chemical similar one that's found in all living cells and is vital in producing the energy that makes something alive."
Karl Popper is turning in his grave as I write. This crap is about as scientific as the flat earth hypothesis. The idea that a chaotic system can give rise to complex life is in the not even wrong category. I am not saying that the probabilities are small. I am saying that the probability is exactly zero. Why? Because, as any programmer can tell you, the beneficial code combinations are dwarfed by the destructive combinations by many, many orders of magnitude. Things can never get to the self-replicating stage because they are guaranteed to be destroyed before anything vaguely interesting can happen.
This is just propaganda crap for dirt worshipers. Sorry, the dirt-did-it crowd is much less credible than the aliens did it crowd.
I agree that evolution is a fact of life. However, there is no concrete evidence showing that man evolved from apes or a shrew like creature. anyone who believes that humans are direct descendants of apes are using faith as a tool as much as one who believes in religion X.
Just because you do know more that I do doesn't necessarily make you right either. You are welcome to your opinion, of course. I apologize for not having spent 8-12yrs in a university, but I do read quite a bit on my own and I am not convinced that there is a concrete trial of evidence between humans and apes. Yes. Anything outside of direct observation, not matter what evidence exists, has to be believed with a degree of faith as there is no was to prove your position with 100% accuracy.