Criticism of the "primal soup" confirms creation research
Where, when and how did life on Earth come from? These questions have been of interest to mankind for a long time. In the 19th century, the French chemist Louis Pasteur conducted several experiments that showed that life could not arise spontaneously from nothing. Despite the fact that he proved the impossibility of "spontaneous generation", some theorists simply added to this general idea of imaginary long periods of time and re-presented it as "chemical evolution."
As a result, for the past 80 years, school biology textbooks have hammered into people's heads the lie that life arose spontaneously in a "primordial soup" on the surface of the ocean. Creationists who did not fall for the bait of this evolutionary fraud, throughout this time denied the possibility of spontaneous origin of life from the standpoint of biology and proved the obvious fallacy of the "chemical soup" theory.
Almost a century later, the scientific community has recognized that "chemical soup" cannot be the correct answer.
Finally, almost a century later, the scientific community recognized that the "chemical soup" could not be the correct answer to the question of the origin of life. BioEssays magazine has published a new study that convincingly demonstrates why this old and familiar worldview doesn't work. Nick Lane, lead research scientist at University College London, noted: “Textbooks are full of claims that life arose from organic broth, and the first cells grew from the fermentation of these organics and the production of energy in the form of ATP. We present a new perspective that explains why this old and familiar worldview cannot be true at all."
Modern "primitive broth"? The Great Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park, USA is a perfect example of most of the assumed conditions in the early earth. Not only is there no "chemical evolution" of life in it, but it is, in principle, not possible.
In 1929 D. B. S. Haldane theorized that ultraviolet radiation was the energy source for converting methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the ocean on ancient Earth. However, critics of the soup theory noted that "there is simply no stable driving force that can cause anything to react, and without a source of energy, the life we know cannot exist." Nick Lane writes that the main weak point of the chemical soup theory is "bioenergetic and thermodynamic gaps." Bioenergy studies the use of energy required for living cells, as well as the formation of an ATP molecule that provides energy to cells. The researchers say that despite scientists' unquenchable hope of finding a way to form ATP in the primary broth mixture, they no longer have any broth recipes left.in which experiments could be carried out.
Promotional video:
According to the authors of the study, the broth "is not capable of transferring energy" because the formation of ATP requires protons to be tightly packed and separated. In fact, the exact opposite process occurs in the broth: the protons scatter quickly.
By the way, many of the arguments from this study are not new: creation scientists have long presented them to the global scientific community, but until now they have been treated with disdain and ridicule. Prominent, now deceased, creationist scientist AE Wilder-Smith clearly identified this thermodynamic stumbling block back in 1970: “Thus, long periods of time would not only provide more time for a 'successful' synthetic reaction to evolve, but would also give more time for the "unsuccessful" (often the most plausible) decay reaction to occur - away from life, back to the inanimate state!"
The belief that life arose only as a result of natural processes is based not on scientific observation, but on the atheistic logic of naturalism. It is clear that, since man exists, those who deny the existence of the Creator must believe that a spontaneous generation once took place.
Today, 80 years of evolutionary suggestion are simply being written off without much guilt over the terrible delusion that several generations of people have been led into.
But what is most striking and outrageous is that the idea of the “primordial soup” was simply replaced by another, no less erroneous and biologically impossible scenario. Lane and his colleagues have suggested that life originated in deep-sea hydrothermal vents. However, this theory has no less shortcomings and errors than the idea of a "primordial soup". experiments already show that it is unlikely that deep-sea sources can be "special" enough to generate the material and information needed for a cell with minimal functioning.
The only thing that can break this vicious destructive circle is the recognition by the scientific community that the spontaneous origin of life is biologically impossible.
Knowing the history, we can safely assume that the idea of a "primitive soup" will remain in biology textbooks for several more years. Slowly but surely, over the next decades, the “primordial soup” theory will gradually be replaced by the “hydrothermal vents” theory (or some other theory). Years will pass, and the theory of "hydrothermal vents" will be replaced by another incredible scenario, which supposedly explains how life spontaneously arose from non-living chemicals millions of years ago. This endless cycle of substitution of one theory for another will continue to the point of insanity. The only thing that can break this vicious destructive circle is the recognition by the scientific community that the spontaneous origin of life is biologically impossible. This fact is confirmed by numerous biological experiments,conducted over the past 160 years.
However, if evolutionists admit this, they will face the reality that George Wald said more than 50 years ago: “… the only alternative to spontaneous generation of life is to believe in a one-time initial event of supernatural creation. There is no third. How many more decades will an evolutionary society teach its false ideas to millions of children before we can ask them for everything?
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” - this statement is 3500 years old. Until now, no scientific discovery has refuted its truth. How tall must the pile of outdated, error-ridden evolutionary biology textbooks become before society reverts to the truths recorded in the only book that “does not pass away” (Mark 13:31)?
