Did life spring from "fossil fuels" rather than vice versa?

[David Carroll]

I was recently doing some thinking about the relation between fossil fuels and organisms. First of all, how do scientists know for sure that fossil fuels are derived from prehistoric life? Do they assume this because fossil fuels are made of organic compounds and therefore must have come from organic beings?

Is it possible that reservoirs of so-called fossil fuels were really the result of completely geological or astrophysical processes? And perhaps the first complex organic compounds came from the "simple" organic compounds contained in pools of fossil fuel?

If we admit this as a possibility, it would put a dent in the perplexity about how complex bio-chemical molecules were "created", I believe.

 

[billy_joule]

I was recently doing some thinking

Quit the thinking and start with some research.

The mechanisms that fossil fuels are formed by is well understood.

In science, conclusions are not leapt upon based on assumptions.

 

[Evo]

I was recently doing some thinking about the relation between fossil fuels and organisms. First of all, how do scientists know for sure that fossil fuels are derived from prehistoric life? Do they assume this because fossil fuels are made of organic compounds and therefore must have come from organic beings?

Is it possible that reservoirs of so-called fossil fuels were really the result of completely geological or astrophysical processes? And perhaps the first complex organic compounds came from the "simple" organic compounds contained in pools of fossil fuel?

If we admit this as a possibility, it would put a dent in the perplexity about how complex bio-chemical molecules were "created", I believe.

If you are referring to the old "abiotic oil" theory, it's pretty much debunked. We've discussed it here before.

The abiotic oil hypothesis is an attempt to explain the source and formation of petroleum. As the name suggests, the hypothesis proposes that oil originates from non-biological origins.

The hypothesis is mostly Soviet, mostly archaic, and mostly debunked. In the Anglophone world, abiotic oil proponents tend to cite the work of the late astrophysicist Thomas Gold.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil

A good link on fossil fuel. http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html

 

[David Carroll]

Interesting links. I've always been amused by some of the Soviet scientists, who would insist that their hypotheses were correct because, either subconsciously or consciously, they had ramifications that would boost the respectability of Dialectical Materialism. Lysenko's theories vaguely alluded to the equality of all beings, or at least of humans. I can see why the abiotic view of fossil fuels would do quite a favor to the dogmatic rejection of God.

 

[zoki85]

I can see why the abiotic view of fossil fuels would do quite a favor to the dogmatic rejection of God.

 

[David Carroll]

Are you laughing with me or at me, zoki85?

 

[David Carroll]

I think I can correctly deduce that you are laughing at me. Otherwise billy_joule would have liked both your post and mine.

 

[zoki85]

Are you laughing with me or at me, zoki85?

Just laughing. The sentence made me laugh instantly. I didn't see something like that coming :)

 

[David Carroll]

I see. I'm really not that sensitive, though. *Morrissey plays in the background...*

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There is no basis for the abiotic theory of fossil fuels. Given that PF exists to discuss questions related to current mainstream science there's nowhere this thread can continue within the rules.

 

[zoki85]

I must admit I haven't heard of such theory yet (it is cool but crazy). Matter of fact, during first quick reading of the thread I captured it like "antibiotic fossil fuels". :w But it was late night...