Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New fossils push back the indisputable origin of life

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Two relatively recent articles to chew on dealing with the whole idea of a Late Heavy Bombardment and when it might have taken place...
    Interesting, that would certainly provide more time for life to develop. But then there is this:

    Source: Wikipedia

    More recently, a similar study of Jack Hills rocks shows traces of the same sort of potential organic indicators. Thorsten Geisler of the Institute for Mineralogy at the University of Münster studied traces of carbon trapped in small pieces of diamond and graphite within zircons dating to 4.25 Ga. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 was unusually high, normally a sign of "processing" by life.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      The geologic evidence speaks for itself. Life began and persisted throughout the Archean and Proterozoic despite the comet and meteorite bombardment.
      What about the genetic molecular clock estimates? Putting the origin of life back in the Hadean. The earliest fossils were photosynthetic, which is complex life, and would require some development.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        What about the genetic molecular clock estimates? Putting the origin of life back in the Hadean. The earliest fossils were photosynthetic, which is complex life, and would require some development.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        There are no genetic clock estimates just your nonscientific pseudo math ENRON Creationist probability foolishness.

        Again, life did not begin back in the Hadean, At least get that through your thick scull. There are no known rock formations in the HAdean. Life began when continents began to form, oceans existed, sedimentary rocks, and sea floor spreading began in the beginning of the Archean, which defines the beginning of the Archean.

        Your reference provided evidence for establishing a new date for the beginning of the Archean The estimates of dares have always been an estimate you know (~).
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-13-2021, 04:38 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          What about the genetic molecular clock estimates? Putting the origin of life back in the Hadean. The earliest fossils were photosynthetic, which is complex life, and would require some development.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          Revised response:

          There are no genetic clock estimates for abiogenesis just your nonscientific pseudo math ENRON Creationist probability foolishness.

          Again, life did possibly begin back in the late Hadean, but it would have been when sedimentary rocks and continents began to form. Life began when continents began to form, oceans existed, sedimentary rocks, and sea floor spreading began in the beginning of the Archean, which defines the beginning of the Archean.

          Your reference provided evidence for establishing a new date for the beginning of the Archean The estimates of dares have always been an estimate you know (~). Some are subdividing the late Hadean with presence of carbon and zircon crystals in the strata more like the Archean. Actually this is nothing new.

          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean



          In the last decades of the 20th-century geologists identified a few Hadean rocks from western Greenland, northwestern Canada, and Western Australia. In 2015, traces of carbon minerals interpreted as "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1-billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia.[10][11]

          The oldest dated zircon crystals, enclosed in a metamorphosed sandstone conglomerate in the Jack Hills of the Narryer Gneiss Terrane of Western Australia, date to 4.404 ± 0.008 Ga.[12] This zircon is a slight outlier, with the oldest consistently-dated zircon falling closer to 4.35 Ga[12]—around 200 million years after the hypothesized time of the Earth's formation.

          In many other areas, xenocryst (or relict) Hadean zircons enclosed in older rocks indicate that younger rocks have formed on older terranes and have incorporated some of the older material. One example occurs in the Guiana shield from the Iwokrama Formation of southern Guyana where zircon cores have been dated at 4.22 Ga.[

          © Copyright Original Source



          Again, again and again for abiogenesis there is absolutely no genetic clock estimates for abiogenesis except for your imagination. Life began when the conditions were right for life to begin. Abiogenesis like evolution is environmentally driven.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-13-2021, 04:55 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Interesting, that would certainly provide more time for life to develop. But then there is this:

            Source: Wikipedia

            More recently, a similar study of Jack Hills rocks shows traces of the same sort of potential organic indicators. Thorsten Geisler of the Institute for Mineralogy at the University of Münster studied traces of carbon trapped in small pieces of diamond and graphite within zircons dating to 4.25 Ga. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 was unusually high, normally a sign of "processing" by life.

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source


            Blessings,
            Lee
            That's still a gap of hundreds of millions of years. That's a lot of time for something to happen.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Interesting, that would certainly provide more time for life to develop. But then there is this:

              Source: Wikipedia

              More recently, a similar study of Jack Hills rocks shows traces of the same sort of potential organic indicators. Thorsten Geisler of the Institute for Mineralogy at the University of Münster studied traces of carbon trapped in small pieces of diamond and graphite within zircons dating to 4.25 Ga. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 was unusually high, normally a sign of "processing" by life.

              Source

              © Copyright Original Source


              Blessings,
              Lee
              Recent studies?!?! This has been known for 40-50 years. A brief footnote in Wikipedia is not good source.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                There are no genetic clock estimates for abiogenesis just your nonscientific pseudo math ENRON Creationist probability foolishness.
                The article in Nature would say otherwise:

                Source: Nature

                A sophistication of life by 3,700 Ma is in accord with genetic molecular clock studies placing life's origin in the Hadean eon (>4,000 Ma).

                Source

                © Copyright Original Source



                Life began when the conditions were right for life to begin. Abiogenesis like evolution is environmentally driven.
                But if life began early after conditions were right, that might not allow time for life to develop.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  That's still a gap of hundreds of millions of years. That's a lot of time for something to happen.
                  But can you demonstrate that that would be enough time for photosynthetic life to evolve?

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    The article in Nature would say otherwise:

                    [cite=Nature]A sophistication of life by 3,700 Ma is in accord with genetic molecular clock studies placing life's origin in the Hadean eon (>4,000 Ma).
                    You were not clear. I believe your post indicated the time needed for abiogenesis to take place and life to begin, and not using the genetic clock to date the time life began. If this is the case you answered your own question estimates based on the genetic clock roughly agree with the geologic evidence when life began.

                    The geologic data demonstrates that what is described as the last part of the Hadean has the conditions suitable for life: sea floor spreading, continents forming and sedimentary rocks based on the presence of the zircon crystals and carbon deposits.

                    [quote=lee_merrill] What about the genetic molecular clock estimates? Putting the origin of life back in the Hadean. The earliest fossils were photosynthetic, which is complex life, and would require some development.

                    The answer is simple; the right environmental conditions for abiogenesis to take place would the requirement for some development to take place. A molecular clock is not what defines the beginning of life through abiogenesis. The molecular clock estimates are to estimate when abiogenesis took place.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-16-2021, 07:40 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      But can you demonstrate that that would be enough time for photosynthetic life to evolve?

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      If Mojzsis is correct we're looking at a space of over 700 million years. Let's say he seriously miscalculated and was off by 200 million years. That's still 500 million or half of a billion years. To put another way, during the Cambrian, not long after the Burgess Shale formation was laid down. And look how much has changed over that period of time.

                      While it is true that most of the phyla that are around today arose during the Cambrian (some like sponges, annelids and cnidarians arose earlier in the Precambrian[1]) they are not anything like what we see today. Back in the Cambrian there were no amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals (much less humans). Simply put there were hardly any chordates at all, to say nothing of vertebrates. As far as fish go, they were limited to primitive, invertebrate jawless creatures that one can classify as "fish" like Haikouichthys, but no fully developed modern fish. Fish like we commonly find today are nowhere to be found in Cambrian deposits.

                      And there were few if any terrestrial insects (which represent well over 50% of all animal life currently existing on the planet).

                      Flora-wise there were not only any flowering plants (angiosperms) there weren't even any gymnosperms from which they arose from. There wasn't much in the way of any sort of terrestrial plants at all (vascular plants first arose during the Silurian long after end of the Cambrian).

                      As Graham Budd and Sören Jensen noted in their 2000 paper, A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla, Cambrian life was still unlike almost anything that we observe today. While a number of phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or earlier, most of the phylum-level body plans first appear in the fossil record much later on.

                      This flies in the face of the oft repeated claim made by creationists that, as Jonathan Wells (Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute) puts it, "Most animal forms appear in the form they currently have in the present." Nope. Not even remotely close.

                      Secondly, the type of photosynthesis that first arose was likely very different than what we think of now. For instance, from a decade and a half ago, but I don't think it is obsolete, the abstract from Photosynthesis in the Archean Era

                      Abstract

                      The earliest reductant for photosynthesis may have been H2. The carbon isotope composition measured in graphite from the 3.8-Ga Isua Supercrustal Belt in Greenland is attributed to H2-driven photosynthesis, rather than to oxygenic photosynthesis as there would have been no evolutionary pressure for oxygenic photosynthesis in the presence of H2. Anoxygenic photosynthesis may also be responsible for the filamentous mats found in the 3.4-Ga Buck Reef Chert in South Africa. Another early reductant was probably H2S. Eventually the supply of H2 in the atmosphere was likely to have been attenuated by the production of CH4 by methanogens, and the supply of H2S was likely to have been restricted to special environments near volcanos. Evaporites, possible stromatolites, and possible microfossils found in the 3.5-Ga Warrawoona Megasequence in Australia are attributed to sulfur-driven photosynthesis. Proteobacteria and protocyanobacteria are assumed to have evolved to use ferrous iron as reductant sometime around 3.0 Ga or earlier. This type of photosynthesis could have produced banded iron formations similar to those produced by oxygenic photosynthesis. Microfossils, stromatolites, and chemical biomarkers in Australia and South Africa show that cyanobacteria containing chlorophyll a and carrying out oxygenic photosynthesis appeared by 2.8 Ga, but the oxygen level in the atmosphere did not begin to increase until about 2.3 Ga.


                      Still, to be honest, I really don't know how long it all would take to evolve, but given the above considerations, the amount of time that may have been available from the origin of life to some type of photosynthesis doesn't seem unreasonable. Look at for instance what conservative estimates are for how long it would take eyes to have evolved[2]







                      1. And at least one phyla arose after the Cambrian. Bryozoa, for instance, is not known before the early Ordovician.

                      2. Back in 1994 Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger worked out a mathematical model on the time needed for a patch of light sensitive cells or photoreceptors covered by a layer of transparent tissue to evolve into a lensed eye resembling those commonly seen in many fish was reached. They found that it would take roughly 364,000 generations -- which equates to less than half a million years.

                      It took roughly 400 steps for the photoreceptor layer and pigment layer to form a retinal pit which continued to deepen until after approximately 1000 steps until it formed into a pin-hole camera eye. After this the lens shape continued evolving and the iris flattened allowing better focusing thereby providing improved optical properties.

                      In the end they found that the complete evolution of an eye like those found in a vertebrate or octopus took less than 2000 steps.

                      Moreover, Nilsson and Pelger took great pains to deliberately choose very conservative (low), pessimistic assumptions in their calculations so in reality it probably would have taken much less time to take place. For instance, they assumed that for every 101 organisms that got a certain mutation which provided them improved vision that 100 without this improvement also survived. This assumes that you are essentially as well off without the improvement in vision as you are with it which, in the real word, is extremely unlikely.

                      For those actually interested the paper can be found here: A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        This article explains the discovery and how life could begin and thrive in subsurface caverns despite the meteor and comet bombardments. This discovery and research documents how and when life began. Thank you Lee Merrill for opening this thread.

                        Source: https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/46751/20210716/3-42-billion-year-old-microfossil-microfossils-life.htm



                        New Discovery: 3.4-Billion-Year-Old Microfossils Found Could Help Explain How Life Started

                        By Miguel Brown Jul 16, 2021 07:40 PM EDT

                        A microfossil as old as 3.4 billion years old was found to have explained how life started both on Earth and in celestial bodies above. This ancient evidence of 'methane-cycling microbe life' which may have originated from underneath the seafloor could give insights on how or where life began how and where life first began during the Paleoarchean era, 3.2-3.6 billion years ago.

                        These life forms found in rich liquid made of cooler seawater from above its floor and warmer hydrothermal fluids from the below, mixed together might even tell us whether they were around long enough or much earlier than Earth's history.
                        Scientist were able to find samples of the oldest microbes from sub-surface habitats, or ecosystems heated by volcanic activity that were likely to have hosted the Earth's earliest microbes.

                        "We found exceptionally well-preserved evidence of fossilized microbes that appear to have flourished along the walls of cavities created by warm water from hydrothermal systems a few meters below the seafloor," said paleontologist Barbara Cavalazzi from the University of Bologna.

                        In a place where most of the oldest and well-preserved sedimentary rocks on the entire planet can be found, holds the fossils collected by the scientists. This restricted location of Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa also carries evidence of diversity among Earth's earliest record of life. A few studies had found that sedimentary rocks in the region have escaped regional high-grade metamorphism and penetrative deformation.

                        After analyzing the sediments retrieved from the place, the scientist found a carbon-rich outer covering around the 'chemically and structurally-distinct core' of the microfossil, which implies that a wall or membrane covers its cells.

                        To verify if the microfossils collected were actually microbes on their past life, investigations had found that the samples contained most of the major chemical elements needed to live, including other supporting evidence like the concentrations of nickel similar what modern-day archaea prokaryotes have, and use of methane rather than oxygen, as what their distant ancestors did.

                        "Although we know that archaea prokaryotes can be fossilized, we have extremely limited direct examples," Cavalazzi explained. She also added that the "findings extend the record of archaea fossils for the first time into the era when life first emerged on Earth."

                        The Order of Life


                        Do humans really possess the wisdom and ability to foretell the origin and order of life on Earth? On outer space? We would never know unless insights from billion-years-old lightning strikes, or blasts from hydrothermal vents are thoroughly analyzed.
                        While investigating earthly events a billion years back might be a lot of work, the recent research of ancient microbes confirms the previous hypothesis that subsurface hydrothermal systems could be as important in the creation of life as other factors. Opening up the mind to a lot of possibilities of how life started could mean better understanding of conditions required to be able to say, life did exist. These parameters are not just useful for earthly matters, but for life on other planets as well.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          If Mojzsis is correct we're looking at a space of over 700 million years. Let's say he seriously miscalculated and was off by 200 million years. That's still 500 million or half of a billion years.
                          But according to the article, this is "explaining why life began to form almost 4 billion years ago," so that leaves 300 million years to the stromatolites.

                          While a number of phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or earlier, most of the phylum-level body plans first appear in the fossil record much later on.

                          This flies in the face of the oft repeated claim made by creationists that, as Jonathan Wells (Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute) puts it, "Most animal forms appear in the form they currently have in the present." Nope. Not even remotely close.
                          Yet the fossil record shows abrupt appearance, then statis (per The Beak of the Finch).

                          Secondly, the type of photosynthesis that first arose was likely very different than what we think of now. For instance, from a decade and a half ago, but I don't think it is obsolete, the abstract from Photosynthesis in the Archean Era
                          That's fine, but is that simpler? And I would think that photosynthesis of any sort would be complex.

                          Look at for instance what conservative estimates are for how long it would take eyes to have evolved
                          Well, if each step is 90% probable, then 2000 steps is about 1 in 1091...

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            This article explains the discovery and how life could begin and thrive in subsurface caverns despite the meteor and comet bombardments.
                            So, several considerations: First, finding early life does not explain how life began. Also, this does not explain the water paradox, where water is both needed and hostile to life's elements. And then ocean water would dilute any of life's molecules, making it difficult for life to get started.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              So, several considerations: First, finding early life does not explain how life began.
                              Not specifically the subject of the thread, Your failing to respond, and resorting to repeated 'arguing from ignorance,' reflects your appalling lack of knowledge and religious agenda, which 'The Lurch' has repeatedly demonstrated.

                              The references documented the evidence for the earliest life forms, and conditions at the time.


                              Also, this does not explain the water paradox, where water is both needed and hostile to life's elements. And then ocean water would dilute any of life's molecules, making it difficult for life to get started.
                              Your speculating concerning the nature of the water involved, without addressing the last post and reference. Playing dodgeball. The so called water paradox has been addressed by'The Lurch' many times, and like all other of your attempts at 'arguing from ignorance' issues you choose to ignore The Lurch.'

                              The reference demonstrates that the simple earliest life was found in caverns in the oceans, which is documenting the water as friendly to the earliest life.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Well, if each step is 90% probable, then 2000 steps is about 1 in 1091...
                                Once again, despite this coming up multiple times, Lee abuses multiple probabilities.

                                That's only the case if absolutely none of the intervening steps gets fixed. Which is exactly the opposite of what evolution proposes.
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2021, 02:51 PM
                                7 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
                                44 responses
                                216 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
                                19 responses
                                95 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
                                23 responses
                                87 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X