Such was professed by Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education's 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution. Scott's words are as unsurprising as they are familiar.It seems that almost on a daily basis, we find the news media quoting evolutionary scientists declaring that materialist accounts of biological and chemical evolution are "fact." Students who take college-preparatory or college-level courses on evolution are warned that doubting Darwinism is tantamount to committing intellectual suicide -- you might as well proclaim the Earth is flat.Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).
In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated the primordial soup theory "doesn't hold water" and is "past its expiration date." Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents.
But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.
Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a primordial soup -- a water-based sea of simple organic molecules -- out of which life arose.
While the existence of this "soup" has been accepted as unquestioned fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.
Chemical Evolution is Dead in the Water Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth.
Perhaps they did form a "primordial soup," or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent.Geochemical studies have found that the chemical properties of the Earth's mantle would have been the same in the past as they are today.found that the chemical properties of the Earth's interior have been essentially constant over Earth's history, leading to the conclusion that "Life may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms." So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis of life's building blocks that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that origin of life investigators undertake a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth." Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup" theory it is claimed to support.In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.These "Miller-Urey experiments" intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth's atmosphere. Looks like the page you're looking for has been moved or is no longer here.