By Dr Jonathan Sarfati creation.com
Many evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-living chemicals in the ocean. But salt is proving to be a big problem (as long noted by creationists — see creation.com/loopholes, creation.com/origin).
Part of the "evidence" is the alleged similar composition of our blood to seawater. But this has long been exposed as fallacious—there is little correlation between the amounts of different chemicals (see creation 19(2):24–25, 1997; creation.com/red-blooded-evidence).
But another problem is with "salt" in the wider chemical sense. Most think of salt as sodium chloride, and this is enough of a problem for billions-of-years dogma (see creation 21(1):16–17, 1998; creation.com/salty). But to chemists, 'salt' refers to a wide range of chemicals where a metal is combined with a non-metal. And the problem is with abundant calcium ions.
A recent report points out:
Chemical evolutionist David Deamer of UC Santa Cruz, author of First Life (2011), is also concerned with their effect on fatty acids, essential for cell membranes. Fellow chemical evolutionist, Jack Szostak of Harvard University, points out that ions like calcium "would definitely precipitate fatty acids, preventing membrane formation." We see this happening when we use soap in hard water: the soap "scum" is this precipitate.
But the dilemma is that these ions are actually vital for life's function. For example, "calcium ions play a vital role in cellular signalling." So the very ions that are essential for life to function would prevent its formation in the first place.
A salt-free primordial soup? Physorg.com, 19 January 2012.
Oozing Life Up Against All Odds, crev.info, 20 January 2012.