Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life 407

Posted by Zonk from the built-to-breathe dept.
mathinator writes "A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life. The paper was authored by doctoral student Feng Tian, Prof. Owen Toon and Research Associate Alexander Pavlov of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and by Prof. Hans De Sterk of University of Waterloo's Applied Mathematics department. The paper was published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life More

Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life

Comments Filter:

  • This article contains material on evolution. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09, 2005 @03:48PM (#12188894)
    Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered

    • CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09, 2005 @04:13PM (#12189013)
      The Catholic church says evolution is a fact. Your "disclaimer" post is blasphemy!

      Read [catholic.net], you blasphemous heretic.

      • Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by coma_bug ( 830669 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @11:16PM (#12191073)
        From your link:

        If, therefore, a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.

        This is complete bullshit. I am amazed how many times religious people sprinkle this kind of magic pixie dust to produce a holier-than-thou philosophy. The steps in the process are:

        (1) identify something that we cannot possibly know one way or another (for example, the origin of the universe, or free will vs. determinism).
        (2) pronounce some spiritual hocus pocus to answer the problem.
        (3) ignore the fact that the spiritual answer suffers the same problem.
        (4) take tithes from the ignorant.
        (5) profit!

        In this particular case, free will vs. determinism is not answered by postulating the existance of a soul because that "answer" suffers *exactly* the same problem: maybe thoughts move throught the soul in a deterministic way.

        Much the same can be said for the cosmological (first cause) argument.

    • Re:This article contains material on evolution. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Bullfish ( 858648 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @04:44PM (#12189165)
      Well, duh... it does contain information about evolution, it was published by a university, by scientists and their ilk. It boggles my mind that in the 21rst century, on the internet, in a place where people with a grasp of science come to dialogue, that we have to wade through crap posted by the superstitious defending their mythology. Of course, people try to argue with them from a scientific basis while they just go "no, no, non. blah, blah, blah, with their fingers in their ears.

      You want to believe, fine, believe, you want to hand out tract literature showing how unless everybody follows your beliefs that a disembodied thumb will squish you into the ground, fine, but stick to your own kind. Go on a picnic, it is a beautiful Saturn's Day outside. Bring along some books to burn so you can toast your wafers.
    • Why can't both be acceptable?

      If you accept creationism completely, literally, and unequivocally ("God snapped his fingers"), then why must things be totaly static? He designed, created, and set upon the earth (and everywhere else) things exactly as they are now, never to change? BS. The proof of change is all around.

      OTOH, if you are in the evolution camp, where the hell did the cosmic egg/big bang come from? Why can't that be the '6 days', and from then on things 'evolved' into what they are now?

      The two

      • Re:You dunderheads (Score:2, Insightful)

        by doshell ( 757915 )
        where the hell did the cosmic egg/big bang come from?

        Perhaps this isn't exactly what you mean, but one good answer to the question "what existed before the Big Bang" (and one that makes me feel comfortable) is that, if you regard Big Bang as the beginning of Time itself, "before the Big Bang" is inherently nonsensical, and thus this is an illogical question to ask.
        I believe Stephen Hawking mentioned this in (probably more than) one of his books; immediately after giving this argument, he parallelled

      • Re:You dunderheads (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        your attempt at reconciliation is almost admirable but it's totally misguided.

        here's a good reason why from the Creationist point of view things must be "static", and why you can't stick the scientific "Big Bang" into the 6-day creation story: the bible says nothing about astronomical phenomena as we understand them today. the official written account of creation says ZIP about anything we have learned about the cosmos: hydrogen fusion, the structure of our planet, structure of our solar system, galaxie

    • Re:This article contains material on evolution. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09, 2005 @05:18PM (#12189330)
      I know you are trying to be funny... However, `evolution`, or what ever you want to call it is a theorem, not a theory. You can prove it happens based on some simple axioms. The only thing you can argue about is timescales. (Which is what modern biologists are doing: "Is evolution proceding uniformly, or does it happen in bursts?", for example.)

      In case anyone is interested, the axioms are:

      1) Parents have children.
      2) Children tend to look like their parents.
      3) Mutations happen. i.e. children do not always inherit all their traits from their parents.
      4) Organisms are different
      5) Such differences yield to different probabilities for a given organism to survive and reproduce.
      6) More children are born than survive to adulthood.

      The proof goes as follows: Given a distribution of 'fitness' for a population, given by axioms 4 and 5 we can calculate which 'parents' will survive to have 'children' (that some do is axiom 1). From axiom 6, many children will be born, and from axiom 2 those children will be like their parents. From this you can calculate the new distribution of 'fitness'. Noting that it will be different due to axioms 6 and 5 (ignoring singular cases where everyone has the same fitness), gives the initial stages of evolution. Now, for evolution to continue, you need new variation (infinite inbreeding is bad, the population tends to a set of clones, and the singular case above is the result), so axiom 3 is needed to fix that.

      Now, it is even possible to prove that the axioms happen.

      For each axiom:
      1) Obvious, really.
      2) If you don't believe this, then you are an idiot. :-) i.e. People `tend` to give birth to people, not other animals and plants.
      3) You need a little science for this one, but it is possible to sequence DNA, and show mistakes happen.
      4) Obvious, really.
      5) This one can be measured as well. For example albino tigers have trouble surviving in the wild since they have trouble hiding.
      6) I know one class mate who died before adulthood, and that one example is enough to prove this one.

      Done! Well... if you want more, you can start doing mathematical models of the various axioms. You can try different mathematical functions for axioms 4 and 5 and see how the different results affect the timescales involved.
      • Unfortunately this doesn't work for one of the earliest criticisms of evolutionary theory, which was that it only explained small-scale changes in a single species but didn't explain how speciation occurred.

        One of the earliest attacks on Darwin went something like "Well, sure, that explains how minor changes occur to species, but it doesn't explain how species came about in the first place."

        Also, your number (2) has to be more rigorous than just "tends" in order for the logic chain to work.

    • A yes, the good old textbook disclaimer. Of course, the intent of this disclaimer is to dishonestly confuse the definition of the word "theory" as used in common nonclemature as opposed to the one used by science. It's a nasty trick by Creationists who have in every other arena been shown to be advocates of a religious very far removed from reality, and who now have to stoop to deliberate deceits like the one above or to Intelligent Design, whose basic notion is nothing more than "somehow something somewh
    • Technically evolution says nothing about how life began, simply what happened afterwards.
    • ...when the atmosphere had lots of both H2 and O2 would have been, well, a blast.

  • Uhh REALLY??? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09, 2005 @03:48PM (#12188900)
    But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?

    • Re:Uhh REALLY??? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by unixbum ( 720776 )
      Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

      I will most likely get modded down for this but it needs to be stated, this is fallacious reasoning. Your assuming the state of life as of today implies favorable conditions in the past.

      More information of Fallacies and Logic. [nizkor.org]
    • If it was unfavorable, then only "God" could have made life happen and string it along until it could live in what environment was provided.

      I put God in quotes because this is all theoretical, and I don't think God works in this way. I do still believe in God, though.
    • No kidding. These guys have said a whole lot of nothing.

      The press release states:
      "'This study indicates that the carbon dioxide-rich, hydrogen-poor Mars and Venus-like model of Earth's early atmosphere that scientists have been working with for the last 25 years is incorrect,' said Toon."

      Yet, in 1953(52 years ago, not 25) the Miller-Urey experiment [wikipedia.org] showed the possibility of an atmosphere containing water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen to form essential biomolecules.


    • > But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?

      Or maybe we'd just be having it somewhere else...

  • In the post... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09, 2005 @03:49PM (#12188905)
    In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere is used by terroists!

  • Correction (Score:3, Informative)

    by mathinator ( 874166 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @03:49PM (#12188907)
    It appears the posted versiond oesn't mention that it was a collaboration between University of Waterloo and University of Colorado at Boulder. The only researcher in Waterloo was Prof Hans De Sterck. Just like to make sure that is clear

  • Can you say... (Score:4, Funny)

    by jackb_guppy ( 204733 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @03:49PM (#12188911)
    DUH!

    Else would we be here.

  • In a post.. oh no (Score:4, Funny)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @03:53PM (#12188931)
    In a post 9/11 world, a study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its current condition probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many terrorists think about how to destroy life on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for explosive reactions, death compounds, and ultimately, the destruction of life.

  • Oil Companies (Score:4, Funny)

    by Thakandar2 ( 260848 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @04:04PM (#12188971)
    The oil companies exterminated these early lifeforms because the companies didn't want hydrogen powered cars getting fuel out of the air.

    By killing these early life forms, the companies guaranteed future fossil fuels and thir grip on our present day driving habits.

  • we are doing our best... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by humuhumunukunukuapu' ( 678704 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @04:08PM (#12188992)
    to make sure the late Earth atmosphere is not.
  • It's time for drastic measures [hempcar.org]
  • Since 99%+ of known free matter in the universe is hydrogen, and the solar system formed out of... mostly hydrogen... is this really a surprise? I'd actually be shocked to find out that there WASN'T that much hydrogen in the atmosphere when things kicked off. This is like putting out a newsflash "We found something in the middle of the ocean - AND IT WAS WET!!!"
    • Well, the atmosphere could have been methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, radon, helium, neon, argon, or any of the other gases emitted by volcanic activity.

      But it was hydrogen. So the question I guess most scientists would ask is: did this hydrogen combine with oxygen to form the oceans, or did the water come from comets and asteroids?
    • Here's a few questions to get you started:
      • When exactly did 'things kick off'?
      • If we presume there was more hydrogen then than there is now, what happened to it? Or, on what basis would you assume that the past would be different than the present?
      • If we presume there was more hydrogen then than there is now, what happened to it? Or, on what basis would you assume that the past would be different than the present?

        Hydrogen tends to float out into space as it is displaced by heavier gasses. So there could have been lots of hydrogen in the past and as heavier gasses filled the atmosphere, the hydrogen would have been driven out. Or it could have reacted with oxygen to form water.

        -matthew

    • Yes it is slightly suprising. Hydrogen "evaporates" out into space unless it is forms some heavier molecules. What this simulation showed was that the rate of evaporation was propably lower than what was previously assumed. This means that life had time to form, and start binding the hydrogen into heavier compounds.
    • Just because a very high proportion of Hydrogen in the gases near the Earth as it was being formed, it doesn't follow that the Earth's atmosphere was composed mostly of Hydrogen. Hydrogen molecules can easily escape the Earth's gravitational field because they have a high enough velocity at normal temperatures, whereas heavier molecules generally don't. So you would expect to find a much higher proportion of heavier molecules forming the Earth's atmosphere, because once the Earth collects them and they te

  • Who says religion polarizes people? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sqrt(2) ( 786011 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @04:13PM (#12189012) Journal
    I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database :D

    • I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database

      Perhaps, but to what purpose? Many make the mistake of reading the words 'Friend' or 'Foe' and accepting that as a definition. But it really is just a system for flagging up message you'd want to see... Now, do you want all those people you disagree with going unchallenged?

      My friends list contains a couple of real arseholes.

      • Good point, but on the other hand if a guy makes a thoroughly inane comment, for example like this:
        http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid =145564 &threshold=0&commentsort=3&tid=14&mode=thread&pid= 12188910
        you have to assume that the quality of his opinions on other subjects will be low. Most likely you will be disinformed by reading them.

      • My friends list contains a couple of real arseholes.

        Hi!


        • Hi!

          You're not one of them. ;)

          And if I were still a subscriber, I'd look back at the comment history and see what it was you said that prompted me to add you to the list. And before anyone else chips in, my Friends list is predominantly made up of those who say interesting things or can put together a well-structured argument. Only a few of them are in there so that I can keep an eye on them and counter their nefarious misinformation.

  • Some thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kenrod ( 188428 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @04:26PM (#12189071)

    From the summary, it seems that these researchers are now saying that the upper atmosphere was cooler than originally thought, thus atmospheric hydrogen escaped at a slower rate. So these researchers are essentially using a mathematical climate model.

    Climate science is very difficult even when we have the actual system to study (modern earth). How can we with any certainty at all know what that system performed like 4 billion years ago? It's time we admit that this research is interesting, but it will always be just speculation backed up data with an amazing depth of variability that is arrived at by making many assumptions.

    Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?

    • Re:Some thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by deglr6328 ( 150198 )
      As your sig suggests it appears that you have in fact, been blinded by science. :) Let me help. Firstly, congradulations, your post is the only one here out of the (currently) ~250 which is actually ON TOPIC and doesn't devolve into idiotic religious ranting! Now, you said "Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?" to

  • If that's the case, then I predict... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Aphrika ( 756248 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @04:47PM (#12189181)
    ...that the atmosphere immediately before the extinction of life on this planet will not be favourable.

    Heck, we live in a window of opportunity on this planet. It started when conditions became favourable and it'll end when they become unfavourable, or we blow ourselves up... which after careful thought is pretty much the same thing.

    All things considered though, I suppose it's nice that they've found out a bit more about conditions then, but maybe the title of their study should've been a more accurate:

    Early Earth atmosphere more favourable to life than we first thought .
  • One of the key question underlying studies of life on earth is simply how did "life", RNA or DNA based, come to be encapsulated in the cell membrane? Studies of prebiotic life tend to skip over the issue. Dr.S. Kauffman [santafe.edu], author of books on Complexity [comdig.org] has offered a few alternative scenarios but the question of how life came to have a place to call 127.0.0.1 remains open to conjecture. Non-equilibrium open systems giving rise to complexity [thymos.com] have held out alot of promise to answering basic questions arising fro

  • Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pooua ( 265915 ) on Saturday April 09, 2005 @07:33PM (#12189983) Homepage
    "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept."

    (From the UW article)

    I have a question for the abiogenesis advocates on this forum. When was Miller's experiment NOT relevant? Toon says the experiments are relevant *again*; that implies they weren't relevant at some time in the past. When was that?

    Of course, I don't ask the question without knowing the answer. I also ask it because it points out a significant flaw in the way we teach abiogenesis theory. The answer to my question is, Miller's experiments were rendered moot several DECADES ago, when all the models pointed to early Earth having an oxygenating atmosphere. No one ever has come up with a model or scenario that would give early Earth the required reducing atmosphere that would make Miller's experiment relevant. But, every time I have pointed this out to evolutionists/abiogenesis advocates over the last 2 decades (and I have done so several times in the last 20 years), they have uniformly denied its significance.

    This continues the characteristic that I find universally in the evolutionary community. They refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their accepted evolutionary model until after they believe they have a solution to those flaws.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close