Primordial Soup

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm in a discussion with my friend, who happens to be a proponent of ID. In our debate we came up to the topic of primordial soup, he asked for evidence of the existence. I pointed out research done by scientists where they were able to re-create the soup, however, it'd be helpful if there was something a but more tangible like geological evidence or something like that.

I've looked online, and thus far I haven't had any luck. Are there any sites you know of that talk about the evidence behind primordial soup?

I appreciate any information you can give me. Sadly, my friend is a victim of the clever attack that is Intelligent Design.

[Kamakazie Sith]

By the way, I don't expect anyone to go do a search for me. What I'm looking for is any sites that someone may have off the top of their head that fills the requirements I posted.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The talk.origins evolution FAQs are your friend.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that it is possible is all the evidence you need, since there is no other viable candidate.

This is like asking for evidence that the rain which hits your head originated in the clouds. You don't have to track each fucking raindrop that hits your head; you only need to do a "proof of concept" to show that this explanation works.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The fact that it is possible is all the evidence you need, since there is no other viable candidate.

This is like asking for evidence that the rain which hits your head originated in the clouds. You don't have to track each fucking raindrop that hits your head; you only need to do a "proof of concept" to show that this explanation works.

Exactly, which is what I've already done. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything else that I can bury him with.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I found something disturbing from this website +http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1096

Specifically this quote;

However, the evidence does not seem to support this because although the famous "Miller Experiment" in 1953 did produce amino acids by sparking gasses, it did not use the gasses that geochemists think that were present in the earth’s atmosphere. When the correct gasses are used, no amino acids are created.

Now I cross examined this and it appears that this website is lying. Every other site I've come across specifically states that Dr. Miller did in fact use what gasses that they thought were present in the earth's atmosphere.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... iller.html

I'm bringing this up because it's very disturbing to me and I felt like sharing it with everyone else.

[Lagmonster]

The soup theory, although popular, is almost certainly wrong; I believe the preferred theory is the 'sandwich' or 'open-faced'. In brief, the idea is that organic molecules would form on flat crystalline surfaces, such as near undersea volcanic vents, rather than floating around - basically giving less chance for the proto-life to be swept away and destroyed.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That makes more sense, since there are self-replicating clays out there that could be considered "alive" in ways, though any crystal is interesting in that respect.

Additionally, it's the Miller-Urey experiment, not just Miller.

[Fire Fly]

In addition to the clay theory, there's also the iron pyrite theory which states that iron pyrite provides the necessary positive charge for phosphate bonding, which leads to polymerization reactions, such as lipids. Thus, due to the physical properties of lipids, you get semi-permeable membranes and thus, you can get a proton gradient (metabolic energy).

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps a more salient response is to acknowledge that only portions of the mechanism for scientific abiogenesis have been successfully tested in the laboratory, and then ask what portions of the physical mechanism behind divine creation have been successfully tested in the laboratory.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Perhaps a more salient response is to acknowledge that only portions of the mechanism for scientific abiogenesis have been successfully tested in the laboratory, and then ask what portions of the physical mechanism behind divine creation have been successfully tested in the laboratory.

Already done, and he admits that there is no evidence. However, he's a firm believer that science will uncover the truth and he thinks that truth will be Intelligent Design, which to him just has to be some sort of self aware control mechanism.

[The Dark]

I found something disturbing from this website +http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1096

Specifically this quote;

However, the evidence does not seem to support this because although the famous "Miller Experiment" in 1953 did produce amino acids by sparking gasses, it did not use the gasses that geochemists think that were present in the earth’s atmosphere. When the correct gasses are used, no amino acids are created.

Now I cross examined this and it appears that this website is lying. Every other site I've come across specifically states that Dr. Miller did in fact use what gasses that they thought were present in the earth's atmosphere.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... iller.html

I'm bringing this up because it's very disturbing to me and I felt like sharing it with everyone else.

There are arguments about what gasses existed, and in what proportions and pressures. However, since we don't know the "correct" gasses, the second sentence is complete bullshit.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps a more salient response is to acknowledge that only portions of the mechanism for scientific abiogenesis have been successfully tested in the laboratory, and then ask what portions of the physical mechanism behind divine creation have been successfully tested in the laboratory.

Already done, and he admits that there is no evidence. However, he's a firm believer that science will uncover the truth and he thinks that truth will be Intelligent Design, which to him just has to be some sort of self aware control mechanism.

There is a control mechanism: the laws of chemistry. But it's not "self-aware", and there is no reason why it has to be.