> If Yockey's analysis is correct, then it seems Loeb has been denied
> his proper place in history due to a mis-translation of carbon
> dioxide !
It does look as though a lot of textbooks will need amending!
> I would also be interested in opinions from geologists, geochemists,
> paleontologists (I'm fishing for the appropriate "expert" category)
> regarding lack of evidence for the soup in the 3.8 billion year
> old Isua rocks. I did a little research on this awhile back and
> found some references where "experts" were expecting to find geological
> evidence for the soup.
To my knowledge, there is no geological evidence for the "soup". The
piece by Yockey summarised things very well. One problem is that the
soup has to exist in a reducing atmosphere, and the earliest rocks
show, at best, a neutral atmosphere.
What is remarkable is the extraordinary persistence of the "soup" +
"reducing atmosphere" scenarios - in the face of contrary evidence.
We are dealing here, not with science, but with an origins myth that
has left itself with almost no room to manoeuvre. Philosophically,
there are no "gaps" to the continuity of "cause and effect" - but to
perpetuate this myth, it is necessary to persevere with scenarios
that are well past their "sell-by" date.
Over the Christmas break, I SAW the "primeval soup"! :)
It was in the Evolution House at Kew Gardens in London. It was the
first exhibit I saw on entering the building - very impressively
bubbling away. Visitors might be excused for concluding that this
is what scientists have concluded about how life started on earth.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***