Jump to content


Abiogenesis Update


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#21 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 June 2009 - 08:37 PM

If it actually lined up with reality.

View Post


This is a good start, but I think it would be helpful if you gave us something more specific. One or two examples that couldn't possibly happen if evolution were false?

Regards,

Arch.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 June 2009 - 08:44 PM

Oh dear Adam...

The whole reason it's taking them so long to create life in a lab is that they have to simulate natural processes. If they wanted to, they could just stick molecules together and make it. They recently made a protobiont in a lab. Of course protobiont isn't alive but it is a subject to natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Protobiont

And scientists are figuring it out quite fast. The earth had all the world oceans as a laboratory and millions of years.

View Post


How much oxygen does it takes to make all the oceans of the world in a oxygen=less enviroment?

How does any life-form survive with no ozone because of the oxygen-less enviroment? UV rays kill, mutate, and sterilize. Especially unfiltered UV rays.

How does rain form and fall in a oxygen-less enviroment?

Low barometric pressure changes the laws of evaporation. A newly forming atmosphere would have low barometric pressure. Which would lower the boiling point of water. The earth was hotter back then. Add all that together and you get oceans of boiling water, atmospheric mosture that would never condense into rain because it's to hot. And UV rays that would kill anything that tried to form in pond scum that was 98% very toxic to all life. Sound like the odds are just right :lol: .

So whip up the lab experiment, we will be waiting. :o

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 June 2009 - 09:30 PM

This is a good start, but I think it would be helpful if you gave us something more specific. One or two examples that couldn't possibly happen if evolution were false?

View Post

Arch,

Read my topics, my friend. We aren't just on this forum repeating "God did it, God did it, God did it, God did it..." There are actual reasons for why God did it and why evolution is impossible.

Go into my profile and click on the topics that I started and see for yourself. It's not the lack of examples that is the problem. It's the overwhelming evidence that makes it hard to choose any one particular thing. There is so much evidence that makes evolution look foolish that it's almost exhausting just contemplating how the balances are so thoroughly stacked against evolution.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you start a thread with what you believe is the best evidence for evolution, then we'll demonstrate how in light of all the facts the best evidences for evolution actually work 99% of the time to disprove it.

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 June 2009 - 09:37 PM

Arch,

How about this question; "Is there any evidence that could erase and offset all the overwhelming evidence against evolution?"

The answer is, no.

#25 Justin.EET

Justin.EET

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alabama

Posted 19 June 2009 - 03:51 PM

Arch,

How about this question; "Is there any evidence that could erase and offset all the overwhelming evidence against evolution?"

The answer is, no.

View Post



Who said there's really any evidence against evolution?

It's pretty much established and a given that evolution occurs.

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 03:56 PM

Who said there's really any evidence against evolution?

It's pretty much established and a given that evolution occurs.

View Post

Define evolution. If you think I'm simply talking about change over time you may wish to examine some rules to see if this forum is even for you.

http://www.evolution...m/forum_faq.htm

This one is especially relevant to determining if you really care to engage in an intellectually satisfying debate or if you are just here to play evolution shell games:

http://www.evolution...ndefinition.htm

#27 Justin.EET

Justin.EET

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alabama

Posted 19 June 2009 - 03:57 PM

ahh my bad.  Thank you for correcting the error.
Question though, If this happened in the atmosphere, and rained back down or floated, how did the acids keep from getting destroy once they were formed?  If as KeithC says Oxygen was still around, what allowed them to still exist once they came out of the electrical-vaporizing clouds?

View Post



I'm not understanding this question.
What do you mean oxygen was around?

O(2) wasn't around

O(2) is a byproduct/waste from photosynthesis. So that means oxygen would've appeared later as you had organisms using photosynthesis to produce food, which in return produce oxygen.

#28 Justin.EET

Justin.EET

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alabama

Posted 19 June 2009 - 04:12 PM

Define evolution. If you think I'm simply talking about change over time you may wish to examine some rules to see if this forum is even for you.

http://www.evolution...m/forum_faq.htm

This one is especially relevant to determining if you really care to engage in an intellectually satisfying debate or if you are just here to play evolution shell games:

http://www.evolution...ndefinition.htm

View Post



You seem to get very emotionally involved when discussing this topic.
When searching for evidence and conclusions you should think like a scientist, not like a person having an argument.

The Biological Evolution Theory has a very clear definition.


"In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." - From Wikipedia

This no doubt occurs.


And when this occurs.... Guess what happens?

"Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species." - Wikipedia


So like I said..... What's stopping mutations from accumulating?
What discerns when the change is large enough to the point of where you can no longer accumulate mutations that would further change the genotype/phenotype?
It's pretty much a given if I grab peanut butter and jelly, and slap both substances between two slices of bread.
I'm going to have a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich.

NOW
To be open minded(Which is what I try to be)
There's still some probability I could get something else, because in reality humans really cannot discern with 100% absolute certainity. Because as Humans we are capable of being wrong.
BUUUUT Bayesian probability will show that I will most likely end up with the peanut butter and jelly sandwhich.
Now back to evolution.... How can we apply this analogy to evolution?
Simple.
If you get mutations that accumulate due to natural selection, allele frequency shifts, and genetic shift. You're eventually going to have a new population of organisms that can be completely different than what their ancestors were. And we happen to define a species shift once the difference is so large in genotype. They are no longer able to repopulate with their previous lineage.
Now....... I'm completely open to me being wrong about this.
Perhaps what I explained is all false.

But tell me where does the changes stop? What determines WHEN the changes stop? What mechanisms prevent the mutations from accumulating to stop large changes.
Because if you keep stacking the pennies you're sooner or later going to have a dollar.

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 04:39 PM

You seem to get very emotionally involved when discussing this topic.

View Post

If you think laying out the facts and telling you the rules is emotional, then you're mixed up. :P Then you ignored what I showed you and brought in a definition that skirts the real issue of debate...

The Biological Evolution Theory has a very clear definition.
"In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." - From Wikipedia

View Post

Here is the bottom line and this is so you can make a decision whether this is a place you actually want to talk about origins or pretend like we're stupid and pull the evolution games that we've seen a thousand times and frankly don't tolerate here.

The choice is yours, Justin. You can either engage us and hopefully learn what we actually believe or do the evolution two-step game that will get you flicked off the forum and get you your martyr badge.

Consider yourself warned.

#30 Justin.EET

Justin.EET

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alabama

Posted 19 June 2009 - 04:45 PM

How much oxygen does it takes to make all the oceans of the world in a oxygen=less enviroment?

How does any life-form survive with no ozone because of the oxygen-less enviroment? UV rays kill, mutate, and sterilize. Especially unfiltered UV rays.

How does rain form and fall in a oxygen-less enviroment?


Low barometric pressure changes the laws of evaporation. A newly forming atmosphere would have low barometric pressure. Which would lower the boiling point of water. The earth was hotter back then. Add all that together and you get oceans of boiling water, atmospheric mosture that would never condense into rain because it's to hot. And UV rays that would kill anything that tried to form in pond scum that was 98% very toxic to all life. Sound like the odds are just right  :P .

So whip up the lab experiment, we will be waiting. :)

View Post



How does any life-form survive with no ozone because of the oxygen-less enviroment? UV rays kill, mutate, and sterilize. Especially unfiltered UV rays.


Water would block the UV
And if anything it would help accelerate the mutations.


"How does rain form and fall in a oxygen-less enviroment?"

Evaporation


"Low barometric pressure changes the laws of evaporation. A newly forming atmosphere would have low barometric pressure. Which would lower the boiling point of water. The earth was hotter back then. Add all that together and you get oceans of boiling water, atmospheric mosture that would never condense into rain because it's to hot. And UV rays that would kill anything that tried to form in pond scum that was 98% very toxic to all life. Sound like the odds are just right "


Low pressures is usually what causes storms in the first place.

The earth being hotter doesn't mean you wouldn't have condensation. The earth was cooling as more water vapor was being emitted. Since the water vapor was helping to establish an atmosphere along with volcanic ash trapping gases. Which there was tons of volcanic activity on a young earth.

I think if you wager in all the variables that you left out..... Life was bound to occur via abiogenesis.

#31 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 04:51 PM

How do you get an amino acid from an oxygen free environment?

Posted Image

Without and atmosphere what would prevent hydrogen and oxygen from escaping into space? 

If free oxygen escapes the earth than the much lighter hydrogen will as well.  You can not assume free oxygen escapes and then turn around and say that hydrogen doesn't also escape.
How exactly does this happen?  Seriously.

View Post


Who ever said the environment was oxygen free?? All that was said is there was no free oxygen. That means O2 was not present. Oxygen was still bonded to other elements to form compounds, one of which was water.

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 June 2009 - 04:55 PM

Who ever said the environment was oxygen free??  All that was said is there was no free oxygen.  That means O2 was not present.  Oxygen was still bonded to other elements to form compounds, one of which was water.

View Post

And the evidence for this? Zero. It's pure speculation. It's not like it matters much. Even the experiments that are fanangled every which way to try and get life to spontaneously generate has been a dismal failure. SO what is the ultimate concern here?

At the end of the day it just shows how desperate philosophical naturalists are to bolster their pseudoscience.

#33 Justin.EET

Justin.EET

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alabama

Posted 19 June 2009 - 05:00 PM

If you think laying out the facts and telling you the rules is emotional, then you're mixed up. :P  Then you ignored what I showed you and brought in a definition that skirts the real issue of debate...
Here is the bottom line and this is so you can make a decision whether this is a place you actually want to talk about origins or pretend like we're stupid and pull the evolution games that we've seen a thousand times and frankly don't tolerate here.

The choice is yours, Justin. You can either engage us and hopefully learn what we actually believe or do the evolution two-step game that will get you flicked off the forum and get you your martyr badge.

Consider yourself warned.

View Post



I think trying to make tons of accusations instead of debating is emotional to me.
That's just my opinion.


And for the record..... You also avoided showing me how I was wrong. Instead you rather argue semantics.

"pretend like we're stupid and pull the evolution games that we've seen a thousand times and frankly don't tolerate here."

-Yet another accusation. You're trying to make this personal..... Not me.
You didn't show me
1)How mutations don't accumulate to stop Macro-evolution(which was the definition you wanted to use in the first place)
2)What mechanism discerns when a mutation accumulation is too large
3)Whats stopping the new populations which are different from previous populations from arriving?


I mean come on.....

Does this


"Here is the bottom line and this is so you can make a decision whether this is a place you actually want to talk about origins or pretend like we're stupid and pull the evolution games that we've seen a thousand times and frankly don't tolerate here.

The choice is yours, Justin. You can either engage us and hopefully learn what we actually believe or do the evolution two-step game that will get you flicked off the forum and get you your martyr badge."

Actually sound like someone who is involved in this scientifically?
And is trying to reason with someone?

Or does that sound like someone who has an emotional issue with the topic that is being discussed or trying get the last word.

#34 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 05:38 PM

And the evidence for this? Zero. It's pure speculation. It's not like it matters much. Even the experiments that are fanangled every which way to try and get life to spontaneously generate has been a dismal failure. SO what is the ultimate concern here?

At the end of the day it just shows how desperate philosophical naturalists are to bolster their pseudoscience.

View Post


It's not speculation. There's a very clear geologic record indicating this.

Ferrous iron is soluble in water, but it reacts readily with oxygen. When archea began producing oxygen it reacted with the iron oxydizing it. The result was ferric oxide(rust) which is insoluble in water, and we see large banded iron formations as a result of this. There's a clear record of oxygen above this stratum, and much less of it below.

Perhaps you have a better explanation for this???

#35 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 June 2009 - 05:57 PM

Water would block the UV


Where does the water come from when oxygen is not part of the atmosphere?
No water = no rain.
No water = no oceans.
No water = no plants.
No plants = no oxygen.

So which came first?
1) Water with no oxygen?
2) Plants with no water?

And if anything it would help accelerate the mutations.


Mutations from that process kills life, it does not make life better. Skin cancer main cause is UV rays right? Can you name one good observable mutation that ever came from life being exposed to UV rays?

Also since you claim UV rays are good for evoution and not bad. Why did not a life form actually form from a cancer mutation and live as the highest evolved life form?

Evaporation


Water cannot exist to evaporate if the basic molecules do no exist. What do you get out of H2O when the O is missing? Is there an alien type water you have discovered? Yo could win the nobel prize if you could produce this.

Low pressures is usually what causes storms in the first place.


Storms with no oxygen? I guess the best scientific way to solve a problem is to ignore it lke it don't exist.

The earth being hotter doesn't mean you wouldn't have condensation. The earth was cooling as more water vapor was being emitted. Since the water vapor was helping to establish an atmosphere along with volcanic ash trapping gases. Which there was tons of volcanic activity on a young earth.


Global warming disproves this. How? How much pollution does a car produce compared to a volcanic erruption? Did you know that one volcanic erruption can produce more atmspheric pollution than man has ever produced? And the earth is having trouble dealing with car emmisions? What do you think it was like when the whole surface of this planet was one big volcanic erruption? How did the earthget over that when it cannot get over car emmision? Talk about your run away green house effect. The earth would boil.

I think if you wager in all the variables that you left out..... Life was bound to occur via abiogenesis.

View Post


Did life crawl from Miller's experiment? No? The biggest jump that Science cannot do is the jump from dead matter to live matter. Because if dead matter were so easy to make alive, man would be immortal by now.

And organs could be repaired with a glob of dead matter. Every shock to a person in the ER would always bring life back. No one would ever die. But that's not what we see now is it?

Makng life in a lab would only prove one thing, it took intelligence to do it.

#36 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 19 June 2009 - 06:54 PM

I think trying to make tons of accusations instead of debating is emotional to me.
That's just my opinion.
And for the record..... You also avoided showing me how I was wrong. Instead you rather argue semantics.

"pretend like we're stupid and pull the evolution games that we've seen a thousand times and frankly don't tolerate here."

-Yet another accusation. You're trying to make this personal..... Not me.
You didn't show me
1)How mutations don't accumulate to stop Macro-evolution(which was the definition you wanted to use in the first place)
2)What mechanism discerns when a mutation accumulation is too large
3)Whats stopping the new populations which are different from previous populations from arriving?
I mean come on.....

Does this
"Here is the bottom line and this is so you can make a decision whether this is a place you actually want to talk about origins or pretend like we're stupid and pull the evolution games that we've seen a thousand times and frankly don't tolerate here.

The choice is yours, Justin. You can either engage us and hopefully learn what we actually believe or do the evolution two-step game that will get you flicked off the forum and get you your martyr badge."

Actually sound like someone who is involved in this scientifically?
And is trying to reason with someone?

Or does that sound like someone who has an emotional issue with the topic that is being discussed or trying get the last word.

View Post



Dear Justin,

You have Adam and pretty much the entire moderator panel on this message board pegged quite nicely. Prepare to be banned.

(I have just recently been unbanned, and I will now prepare to be re-banned.)

Afterwards you can come and collect your martyr badge. :)

#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 June 2009 - 07:29 PM

If this is what you come here to get, then it will happen. I know about the games played called: How quick I can get banned game.

Would you like me to re-open that one thread on FRDB?

If you want to start afresh, that's fine too. I hold no grudges. I basically forget what people do because I find it can make one hateful. I don't even remember exactly why you were banned Judy. I'd have to look it up. But if you want to start afresh, I'll just skip that and we will start over. Deal?

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 June 2009 - 07:38 PM

Does this
"Here is the bottom line and this is so you can make a decision whether this is a place you actually want to talk about origins or pretend like we're stupid and pull the evolution games that we've seen a thousand times and frankly don't tolerate here.

The choice is yours, Justin. You can either engage us and hopefully learn what we actually believe or do the evolution two-step game that will get you flicked off the forum and get you your martyr badge."

Actually sound like someone who is involved in this scientifically?
And is trying to reason with someone?

Or does that sound like someone who has an emotional issue with the topic that is being discussed or trying get the last word.

View Post

To me it sounded like a moderator enforcing the rules. I also detect the sound of someone who doesn't particularly care to see the rules enforced. Please do explain how equivocation is so all-fired vital to scientific research and understanding, if you can.

#39 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2009 - 07:48 PM

[quote name='chigaimasmaro' date='Jun 18 2009, 01:13 PM']
If John Sutherland wasn't using the same chemical setup as what was theorized to be part of the primitive Earth, than how does what the experiment he performed that proves it occurs will naturally? True, he got the single nucleotide to link up, which is cool. But isn't he doing it outside the rules of the game so to speak?
There are still disputes about the early atmosphere of the earth, and so there is no one composition which everyone is agreed on. Miller-type experiments have been conducted with many different gas mixtures and the main conclusion is that absence of free oxygen is the only essential condition, and there is experimental justification for this.
Energy source can be electric discharge (lightning), ultra-violet light.
The key point is that these are high-energy sources which will break down most chemicals so that the fragments re-combine to produce small molecules which are very reactive. Sutherland used a mixture of these chemicals as his starting point. Another difference is that these chemicals reacted in water containing phosphate salts. These catalyzed some reactions and stabilized products.

A recent estimate of early atmospheric composition shows that Miller's choice was very reasonable.
"Calculations Favor Reducing Atmosphere For Early Earth
ScienceDaily (Sep. 11, 2005) — Using primitive meteorites called chondrites as their models, earth and planetary scientists at Washington University in St. Louis have performed outgassing calculations and shown that the early Earth's atmosphere was a reducing one, chock full of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor.
"
http://www.scienceda...50911103921.htm
Plate tectonics has been recycling oxidized crust and some of this material returns via volcanic eruptions. I think that is why present-day volcanic gases are different and more oxidizing than estimated from primitive meteorite compositions.

As to the lightning conditions, I think your question has already been answered. Cloud-to cloud discharge is much more relevant than lightning strikes to the ground.
However, one important requirement for high yields of amino acids and similar complex products is that products should be removed from the discharge rapidly after they are formed. Washing products out of the atmosphere by dissolving in raindrops may be important.

#40 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 June 2009 - 05:38 AM

How much oxygen does it takes to make all the oceans of the world in a oxygen=less enviroment?

and this later question:-

Where does the water come from when oxygen is not part of the atmosphere?
No water = no rain.
No water = no oceans.
No water = no plants.
No plants = no oxygen.

So which came first?
1) Water with no oxygen?
2) Plants with no water?

How does any life-form survive with no ozone because of the oxygen-less enviroment? UV rays kill, mutate, and sterilize. Especially unfiltered UV rays.

How does rain form and fall in a oxygen-less enviroment?

The only way I understand these 2 questions is that you have misunderstood 'no free oxygen' to mean 'no oxygen-containing molecules' in the atmosphere.
Is that correct? Or is there something else I have misunderstood?

This query is important, because if you misunderstand 'no free oxygen' then I have no way of telling what other misunderstandings might be contributing to your belief that abiogenesis is impossible.

You also wrote:-

Low barometric pressure changes the laws of evaporation. A newly forming atmosphere would have low barometric pressure. Which would lower the boiling point of water. The earth was hotter back then. Add all that together and you get oceans of boiling water, atmospheric mosture that would never condense into rain because it's to hot. And UV rays that would kill anything that tried to form in pond scum that was 98% very toxic to all life. Sound like the odds are just right 

This suggests that you also misunderstand what is known of early-earth conditions.

It is perfectly true that the earliest earth would have been hot. This heat came from the kinetic energy of the colliding bodies. However, this heat will radiate into space relatively quickly [19th century estimates of the age of the earth based on time to cool from molten rock were about 20 million years and this would apply to these conditions]. Impacts during or after this initial cooling would have re-heated the earth and re-started the cooling process. Last heavy bombardment was before 3.8 billion years ago.
The comets and asteroids etc which aggregated to form the earth would have included substantial amounts of volatile materials, so there would have been some atmosphere. Any oxygen would be combined with hydrogen to form water, carbon to form CO2 and perhaps CO, and with heavier elements to form non-volatile metal oxides and silicates.
Around 4 billion years ago, the sun is presumed to have been cooler because the helium content would have been significantly lower. With our present atmosphere, this would have produced ice-age conditions. However, there appears to have been a denser atmosphere with substantial CO2 and greenhouse effect.
It is very probable that your conditions of no oceans and no rain did occur early in the cooling process. However, as soon as cooling allowed rain to fall, erosion of the rocky surface would have begun. The eroded material would be exposed to CO2 in the atmosphere and oxides would react to form carbonates, removing CO2 from the atmosphere and decreasing the greenhouse effect.
Lower temperature then allowed more water to condense to fill the oceans. Earth temperature seems to have been variable with ice ages and tropical temperatures alternating as CO2 etc varied.
I think there is substantial evidence for the points summarized here. If you are skeptical, perhaps someone with more specific knowledge than I have could answer any of your specific questions.

There is considerable scientific interest in the possibility of abiogenesis in the oceans, particularly around mid-ocean ridges. Clay particles, soluble salts including phosphates and sulphides would have been present and the ocean would have screened UV out. Early life may have relied on chemical energy from inorganic compounds as well as from chemicals formed in the atmosphere and 'rained' into the oceans.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users