From Soup to “Nuts”? A Sky Recipe for Life
Scientists suggest Earth’s early sky had some “com-
plex molecules … already widespread, which might
have made it a little easier for life to get going”
From Primordial Soup to Fully Stocked Sky:
Scientists Suggest New Recipe for Life
By Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds
While the primordial soup (Oparin–Haldane hypothesis) and similar origin of life theories based in aqueous environments remain as the cornerstone of abiogenesis discourse, a new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “An Archean atmosphere rich in sulfur biomolecules,” on December 1, 2025 makes a bold suggestion: that earth’s archaen atmosphere may have been already fully stocked with complex chemicals to facilitate life’s formation – chemicals previously believed to have been byproducts of biology.
This bold claim by researchers Reed et al. from the University of Colorado, Boulder, was made after dimethyl sulphide (produced by marine algae on earth) was detected in the atmosphere of another planet. The scientists sought to ‘recreate’ precise laboratory conditions to produce an organic sulphur biomolecule: the amino acid cysteine, challenging the “long-standing assumptions that sulfur biomolecules such as cysteine must have been biological ‘inventions.'”
In this article, we critically examine some key claims from this new theoretical development.
Chance or “Stuff Happens” is not a scientific explanation.
The Paradox of Abiotic Synthesis
The irony of abiotic research lies in the high degree of experimental control required to simulate ‘spontaneous’ events. To replicate the origins of life, scientists must engineer precise conditions and sequences that arguably contradict the chaotic, unguided environments they aim to model.
This was no different for Reed et al.’s paper, which painstakingly expounded upon the ‘ultrahigh purity’ (>99.9%) of the CO2, CH4, H2S (Airgas, 1,000 ppmv H2S in N2), and N2 gases used in their precursor mixes. Very high chemical standards were listed, alongside systematic procedures for haze particle generation, filter collection, extraction, and electrospray ionization. For example, the researchers specified precise thresholds for dilution of product outflows “to ensure flow requirements are met through a critical orifice (15.2 µm) further downstream of the flow.” Careful separation, sonication, change of water baths, evaporation, reconstitution and multiple rounds of centrifugation – all carefully orchestrated to simulate the ‘random conditions’ conveniently prepackaged in early earth’s sky to facilitate the first emergence of life!
In commenting about the process of experimentation to Science Daily, “Early Earth’s sky may have created the first ingredients for life,” December 3, 2025, one of the researchers, Eleanor Browne (a chemistry professor and CIRES fellow), mentioned just how precisely lab experimentation was necessary to test their hypothesis about sulphur production. In her words:
“…in the atmosphere, sulfur-based molecules are present at extremely low levels compared to CO2 and nitrogen. You have to have equipment that can measure incredibly tiny quantities of the products.”
Also, in the original paper, they write with precision:
The formation of these sulfur biomolecules must begin with the UV photolysis of the initial photolabile gas mixture (CH4, CO2, H2S) present in a background of N2. The initial photolysis products include the reactive radicals CH3 and HS.
This raises the question: in an uncontrolled early earth atmosphere, what would be the probability that all these sequences and thresholds conveniently aligned to produce even the first sulphur biomolecule?
New Theory, Same Problems
Reed et al. assert that their theory attempts to address “a disconnect” that “emerged between understanding the origins of life and the later stages of biological evolution.” They were driven to provide evidence rarely found from previous experiments. In their words:
… the formation of organosulfur biomolecules has been rare in abiotic synthesis investigations; decades of research have resulted in only a handful of studies which report sulfur biomolecule production.
They pointed out that sulphur in the early atmosphere would have been important, as
… metabolism and the biosphere as we know it would not be possible without them.
After setting up the conditions and extracting the resultant products, the researchers make bold claims about what their research ‘demonstrated.’ In their words:
we demonstrate that this atmospheric chemistry, occurring planet wide, would deliver amounts significant to a budding global biosphere, comparable to or even exceeding estimates for biomolecule delivery on extraterrestrial impactors.
They even claim that the compounds produced would have been capable of supporting “one octillion cells.”
However, did they really demonstrate this?
A closer look at their research results reveals that they were indeed able to yield a form of Cysteine, the coenzyme M, taurine, and the tentative production of Methionine and Hypotaurine – though these are just a few of the essential molecules for life. Along with the production of these useful compounds, their research also yielded several hostile or biochemically disruptive byproducts, including:
- Methyl sulphate: A highly reactive alkylating agent which can damage DNA and proteins.
- Methyl sulphonic acid: A strong oxidant which may disrupt cellular redox balance.
- Ethane thiol: A volatile and toxic compound, not used in known biological pathways.
- Ethyl sulphonic acid: An acid that is potentially membrane-disruptive.
- Cysteine sulphinic acid: A reactive compound which may cause oxidative stress.
While evolutionists may acknowledge this potential toxicity, they might suggest that compartmentalization (e.g., mineral surfaces, microenvironments) could have shielded nascent systems from destructive compounds. However, in uncontrolled chemistry, why would compartmentalization arise spontaneously? Such ‘compartmentalization’ sounds more like the process of guided and controlled experimentation which the researchers intelligently designed for their laboratory environment in the attempt to provide evidence for the feasibility of life emerging from unguided processes!
More Logical Inconsistencies
Even if compartmentalization were possible, the researchers had numerous faulty assumptions that were not discussed. Among these include:
- The fallacy of equating trace molecule formation with biological readiness
While the experiments produced tiny quantities of sulphur biomolecules under highly controlled laboratory conditions, extrapolating this to a global atmosphere capable of supporting “one octillion cells” assumes that trace yields scale linearly to planetary levels. This ignores real life processes such as dilution, competing reactions, or other processes that may cause the degradation of the molecules. The mere presence of molecules in an experiment does not necessarily mean sufficiency for life in uncontrolled conditions.
- The assumption of molecular stability in harsh conditions
Sulphur compounds are notoriously unstable in open atmospheric environments, subject to photolysis, oxidation, and hydrolysis. The claim that these molecules would persist long enough to accumulate and rain down ignores their rapid breakdown.
In addition to this, atmospheric chemistry is dominated by nitrogen, CO₂, and reactive radicals. The likelihood of complex sulphur biomolecules surviving amidst destructive reactions is low. The researchers chose to highlight rare constructive pathways while ignoring the far more probable destructive ones. Transparency in science should require a balanced discussion of the limitations and assumptions involved in one’s research.
- 3. Quantitative Inflation Without Qualitative Function
The researchers made the claim of “enough cysteine to support one octillion cells.” This is misleading, as cells require not just cysteine, but integrated metabolic networks, membranes, replication machinery, and energy systems. Their research had the inconsistency of treating one molecule as equivalent to a living system, conflating quantity with complexity.
Discerning Speculation from Evidence
For the ‘lay’ reader, there are important cues to discern the level of conjecture involved in published pieces such as these. For instance, while conditional words such as ‘may’, ‘might have’ and ‘potentially’ signal caution, which is positive, it also shows the reader that despite experiments, the science is far from conclusive. Yet, oftentimes in origin of life narratives, work published in academic journals are taken as factual. As quoted with added emphases below, the authors implicitly admit conjecture in several sections of their work, even stating that ‘exact chemical mechanisms require further elucidation.’
Here are a few quotes (emphasis added in bold):
These compounds may form high in the atmosphere and subsequently deposit to early surface environments in sufficient amounts to support a budding global biosphere. (PNAS Article)
We speculate that similarities between the reaction sequences observed here and those found in biological cysteine metabolism may follow from the reactivity of each molecular intermediate, which may have implications for “templating” protometabolic processes predating cellular evolution. (PNAS Article)
The researchers propose that these atmospheric biomolecules may have fallen to the surface through rainfall, potentially delivering the chemistry needed to help life begin. (Science Daily commentary)
The team then estimated how much cysteine an entire ancient atmosphere might generate. Their calculations suggested that early Earth’s sky could have produced enough cysteine to support about one octillion (one followed by 27 zeros) cells. By comparison, modern Earth contains roughly one nonillion (one followed by 30 zeros) cells. (Science Daily commentary).
Cartoons by Brett Miller. Used by permission.
Shifting the Issue of Origins
A further interesting observation was a comment from one of the authors in the Science Daily commentary. Researcher Browne stated that:
“We used to think life had to start completely from scratch, but our results suggest some of these more complex molecules were already widespread under non-specialized conditions, which might have made it a little easier for life to get going.”
It is quite convenient for the researchers to attempt to prove that Earth’s early sky could have been fully stocked with the ingredients for life – as this would have made it somewhat easier to reduce certain steps in aqueous environments that have been shown to be insurmountable in origin of life research. However, even a ‘fully stocked sky’ does not solve the issue of where all the gases would have originated from. And it does not answer: How and why would the gases required in experimental conditions be concentrated in the precise ratios, as though ‘prestocked’ for life?
Therefore, at the end of the day, the issue of origins remains. Either the scientists are treating the sky as the make-shift self-intelligent ‘Creator,’ pre-existing and without a beginning, or they have just pushed back the question of origins to an external ‘seeded’ source to form such an intelligent atmosphere to begin with.
Admitting to Complexity, Yet Ignoring God: A Challenge that Needs Resolution
While Reed et al.’s research aimed to show a pathway for the formation of life on earth through the potential for the formation of sulphur biomolecules, one thing that was actually evident was that even single molecules for life require extremely precise conditions.
From the Science Daily commentary, researcher Browne admitted:
“Life probably required some very specialized conditions to get started, like near volcanoes or hydrothermal vents with complex chemistry.”
What does this mean for us?
This research shows that even the most seasoned researchers in high-tech labs struggle to model the ‘perfect’ conditions necessary for life to exist. The search for a strictly materialist Origin Of Life will remain unending. The discerning scientist should realize that even the most precise laboratory conditions pale in comparison to the fine-tuned state of the real world today.
How did it all start?
It is impossible to rely on Chemistry and Physical Laws alone to explain life’s origin. It is as Job 12:10 states:
“In His [God’s] hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.”
The chemistry of life reminds us that we all should stand in awe of the infinite wisdom of our Creator God! May more scientists come to the realization that we are merely tracing the hand of God when we study His creation!
Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds is a Christian, Jamaican, Environmental Science researcher, and journal associate editor. She holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona with high commendation, and a postgraduate specialization in Geomatics at the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. The quality of her research activity in Environmental Science has been recognized by various awards including the 2024 Editor’s Award from the American Meteorological Society for her reviewing service in the Weather, Climate and Society Journal, the 2023 L’Oreal/UNESCO Women in Science Caribbean Award, the 2023 ICETEX International Experts Exchange Award for study in Colombia. and with her PhD research in drought management also being shortlisted in the top 10 globally for the 2023 Allianz Climate Risk Award by Munich Re Insurance, Germany. Motivated by her faith in God and zeal to positively influence society, Dr. Buckland-Reynolds is also the founder and Principal Director of Chosen to G.L.O.W. Ministries, a Jamaican charitable organization which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to know how to defend their faith.