« Watch the Obama Handjobs. They Tell a Story. | Main | Tehran's Tiananmen Square? »
February 9, 2010
Bad Darwinists. No Primordial Soup for You!
Darwinian biologists mixed various recipes for this hypothetical soup, then zapped them with energy this way and that, without any success whatever. Frankenstein's monster simply would not stir from their puddle. This soup nonsense is still presented in biology textbooks, as if it were true. But in an important paper in the journal BioEssays this week, William Martin et al., of the Institute of Botany III in Düsseldorf, spilled the last drop of it onto the trash heap of history. They summarize effectively why it not only did not work, but could not work, under laboratory or any other conditions. -- David WarrenFor 80 years it has been accepted
that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life. -- New research rejects 'primordial soup' as the origin of life | ScienceBlog.comAnd good luck to it.
I wish this hypothesis well, if only because it has long seemed to me, from observing the way nature works, that the seeds of biological life will be found in the earth's interior, rather than on its surface. God would more likely work that way: out of a womb, as it were. -- David Warren
Posted by Vanderleun at February 9, 2010 10:15 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
"Primordial Soup" will always bring this to mind unbidden:
Posted by: Rob De Witt at February 10, 2010 4:15 AM
OMG, Charles Johnson would go INSANE (oh, right) if he read the David Warren article!
Mwahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: ROFLMAOHAHAHEHE at February 10, 2010 4:48 AM
I don't see why Science and God have to be adversarial. I guess Darwinists just don't have room in their reality for God.
Must be a small reality. (and pretty empty, too)
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph at February 10, 2010 5:47 AM
Did I miss something or was immaculate conception replicated in a laboratory?
Posted by: tim at February 10, 2010 6:05 AM
I need desperately to come up with a primordial soup to counteract all the warming deniability going on outside my front door.
Posted by: Jewel at February 10, 2010 6:15 AM
I heard the dinosaurs ate the recipe.
Posted by: Ricky Raccoon at February 10, 2010 10:16 AM
We now have whiteout conditions. All major highways are closed going north from Maryland to NY State, and probably beyond both state lines. Our stupid weather report said 2 to 3 inches for today, but we can easily multiply that by at least 6 or 7. And speaking about the primordial soup, a guy who is clearly from the shortend of the genepool is trying to plow his car out with a snowblower. The blizzard is mocking him.
Posted by: Jewel at February 10, 2010 10:40 AM
Charles Johnson would go insane? Too late I fear, the man is as mad as a march hare. If the news hits his radar screen it will make him bark, or take a picture of nothing in particular, or something like that.
Posted by: Fat Man at February 10, 2010 11:08 AM
I need to add that the whole primordial soup thing is a tell. The theory of evolution, true or false, is a theory about how living things change in small increments over time. It does not include, nor can it include, how dead things become alive.
That theory was once called spontaneous generation, and it went back to Aristotle. It was abandoned in the middle of the 19th century. Pasture drove the final nails in the lid of its coffin in 1864. It was revived in the 1920s as abiogenesis, by a Russian, Alexander Oparin, and an Englishman, J.B.S. Haldane, who were both dedicated Marxists.
You see the theory is not science, it can't be, because it cannot be confirmed by experiment. It is part of the Marxist superstition that is sometimes confused with science, because it claims to be science, and because it does not involve divine revelation.
If a scientist designs a living thing and creates it in his laboratory, does that disprove or prove the theory of intelligent design? Just wondering.
Posted by: Fat Man at February 10, 2010 7:12 PM
If a scientist designs a living thing and creates it in his laboratory, he would need some sort of blue print, either by his own design, or else he would have to work from the basis of existing structures. With the first way, he proves he is God, in the second he proves that God is.
Posted by: Jewel at February 11, 2010 10:37 AM
David Warren is a flat ass. The experiments were never about creating life, they were about producing the precursors to life. And that is what they did. Biology since then has been investigating how life may have arisen from pre-biotics, but we haven't figured it out yet.
The difference between the two is that a scientist is reluctant to admit error, a creationist is afraid to admit error.
Posted by: Alan at February 13, 2010 1:43 PM
Jewel,
Malarky. The only thing it would do is show how a person might design a life form. It says nothing about the billions of years it took blind chance to produce life as we know it.
Billions of years, countless generations, that is what we're talking about here. I think a God who can handle such a length of time, such an expanse of space has a pitiful loser god like the one described in the Old Testament beat all hollow. In other words, my God would look down upon your god and leave him to to his minor amusement, since it keeps him busy and out of trouble.
Posted by: Alan at February 13, 2010 5:31 PM