Another Theory Squashed

[Nekojin]

A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents
in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. "This
is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,"
said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The
theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and
other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the
hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the
vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino
acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such
conditions. "The combination of amino acids into larger peptide
molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the
presence of water at any temperature," notes The New York Times. "And
more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for
living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat." According to
the Times, the researchers concluded "that the hot waters in the
primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic
compounds in the primitive oceans."

[Steve J.]

It adds more fuel to the argument that life was created by an invisible
omnipotent supernatural man with a white beard that lives in the sky who did it
in 6 days, all by blowing into a hand full of dirt. The Bibe was written men
who understood science and the world around them far better than we do. That's
why it explains everything and there is no need to study things today.

Science and Satanism have many parallels.

[mitch]

"Nekojin" <ztr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1174862998.3...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>
> A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents
> in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments.

Just because their experiments didn't work, doesn't negate the possibility!

[DärFläken]

mitch wrote:
> "Nekojin" <ztr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1174862998.3...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents
>> in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments.
>
> Just because their experiments didn't work, doesn't negate the possibility!
>
>>

Scientific method, Just went flush...

[drose...@yahoo.com]

>"The combination of amino acids into larger peptide
> molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the
> presence of water at any temperature," notes The New York Times. "And
> more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for
> living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat." According to
> the Times, the researchers concluded "that the hot waters in the
> primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic
> compounds in the primitive oceans."

This doesn't sound like a complete description of the
experiments and conclusions. If this is a complete description, then
the scientists made a rather bad scientific study. The theory these
scientists are trying to refute is that the chemical reactions
occurred for chemicals adsorbed to the surface of objects in the
thermal vents, not chemicals freely disssolved in the waters of the
thermal vents. Objects implicated in the formation of life include
those thermal "chimneys" that occur due to the chemical reactions down
there. Chemicals adsorbed to a surface have much different properties
than chemicals freely dissolved in water. These guys made an illogical
conclusion (if the description of their reasoning that wass being
presented is true).
The chemistry of surfaces is far different from the chemistry of
liquid solutions. The unique features of surface chemistry are the
only things that make the vent hypothesis so enticing. For one thing,
the saturation concentration of chemicals adsorbed on a surface is far
higher than that of dissolved chemicals. For another, surfaces
stablize some chemicals. Discussions of deep vent theory without
mention of surfaces are highly misleading.
The scientists doing this should have done a different series of
experiments. What they should have done is investigate the stability
of the amino acids or precursor chemicals that are adsorbed on the
surface of a plausibly constructed surface, under conditions that
surface would be exposed to in an ocean vent. They should take a piece
of vent chimney (some have been collected). They should place it in an
environment with the same temperature, pressure, and pH as the ocean
vent. Then they should first see if amino acids adsorb to the surface,
and second see what chemical reactions on amino acids can occur on the
surface. If they didn't do this, their conclusions are bogus.
Personally, I am deeply suspicious of both the Times reporter who
wrote the story and the people who quoted the Times reporter. I
suspect the scientists probably reported an experiment regarding one
particular scenario in the deep vent theory. However, maybe it was
messed up at the investigation level. Regardless, I am not about to
throw away any theory based on one story in the Times.