World's Oldest Fossils Found in Greenland

[Jac3510]

From The New York Times:

• Geologists have discovered in Greenland evidence for ancient life in rocks that are 3.7 billion years old. The find, if confirmed, would make these fossils the oldest on Earth and may change scientific understanding of the origins of life.

For our TEs, I'm curious how this fits in with the evolutionary model for life's origins. If the dating is correct, and if the fossils really do represent biological life, then we have fully functional life--complete with all the things necessarily associated like DNA, protein synthesis, the works--existing at or during the "final rain of large asteroids [that] descended on Earth at the beginning of the ensuing Archaean stage" betwteen 3.8 and 3.9by ago. That's a pretty astronomical thought (pardon the pun) for me. To quote again from the article:

• Evidence of these ancient craters has vanished from Earth but is still evident in the pockmarked face of the moon. And for every crater on the moon, 20 would be expected to have been made on Earth.
  
  The moon has two craters more than 600 miles across that were created during the Late Heavy Bombardment. Some 40 craters this size may have been gouged out of our planet in the same interval, said William F. Bottke, an asteroid expert at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo.
  
  By comparison, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago left a crater only 110 miles in diameter.

So, it seems from my non-professional reading (assuming, of course, that the NYT is accurately reporting this) that life had 100 million years to go from not existing at all to becoming, well, rather complex. That boggles my mind. That would seem to me, again a non-professional, to suggest that life isn't something that just happened but rather is something almost inevitable, as if would just pop up anywhere and everywhere that the conditions were not "hellish." (Which, I note, is the conclusion of one of the scientists the article quotes, although I am quick to recognize that one man's interpretation of the evidence does not qualify as the scientific point of view.)

Anyway, again, my general question is how this fits in with the normal evolutionary scheme. It seems to me not so much to paint a picture of the mechanisms for the origin of life as much as it does about the nature of life itself, that it is a thing that is very readily produced. I don't think that's picture is consistent with what we've seen elsewhere in the universe so far--granted we have only studied a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny (x a few more hundred tinies) portion of it--but, still, that just seems a difficult position to defend.

So thoughts/clarifications?

[RickD]

From the article:

In fact, with trivial variations, there is only one genetic code for all known forms of life, pointing to a single origin.

[abelcainsbrother]

From The New York Times:

• Geologists have discovered in Greenland evidence for ancient life in rocks that are 3.7 billion years old. The find, if confirmed, would make these fossils the oldest on Earth and may change scientific understanding of the origins of life.

For our TEs, I'm curious how this fits in with the evolutionary model for life's origins. If the dating is correct, and if the fossils really do represent biological life, then we have fully functional life--complete with all the things necessarily associated like DNA, protein synthesis, the works--existing at or during the "final rain of large asteroids [that] descended on Earth at the beginning of the ensuing Archaean stage" betwteen 3.8 and 3.9by ago. That's a pretty astronomical thought (pardon the pun) for me. To quote again from the article:

• Evidence of these ancient craters has vanished from Earth but is still evident in the pockmarked face of the moon. And for every crater on the moon, 20 would be expected to have been made on Earth.
  
  The moon has two craters more than 600 miles across that were created during the Late Heavy Bombardment. Some 40 craters this size may have been gouged out of our planet in the same interval, said William F. Bottke, an asteroid expert at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo.
  
  By comparison, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago left a crater only 110 miles in diameter.

So, it seems from my non-professional reading (assuming, of course, that the NYT is accurately reporting this) that life had 100 million years to go from not existing at all to becoming, well, rather complex. That boggles my mind. That would seem to me, again a non-professional, to suggest that life isn't something that just happened but rather is something almost inevitable, as if would just pop up anywhere and everywhere that the conditions were not "hellish." (Which, I note, is the conclusion of one of the scientists the article quotes, although I am quick to recognize that one man's interpretation of the evidence does not qualify as the scientific point of view.)

Anyway, again, my general question is how this fits in with the normal evolutionary scheme. It seems to me not so much to paint a picture of the mechanisms for the origin of life as much as it does about the nature of life itself, that it is a thing that is very readily produced. I don't think that's picture is consistent with what we've seen elsewhere in the universe so far--granted we have only studied a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny (x a few more hundred tinies) portion of it--but, still, that just seems a difficult position to defend.

So thoughts/clarifications?

Hi Jac here is what I think about it. First off scientists who accept evolution protect evolution,so this discovery will be debated by scientists that will make sure this does not effect or hurt evolution. I remember back when I was researching "Snow Ball Earth" which is a scientific hypothesis that at one time the earth became completely frozen at least one time in its past and when it was first proposed it was that the earth at least one time became completely frozen but it led to a scientific debate because of the theory of evolution so that scientists made sure it did not effect the theory of evolution. So the hypothesis was weakened to say it was mostly frozen but not completely so that life could survive it to evolve. So before it was accepted scientists made sure that it did not effect evolution. I expect them to do this in this case also. I think they will have to come up with a new theory to protect evolution before this will be accepted. It takes time for thinks to trickle out when it comes to science. Although it is really not a new theory but was first proposed by Francis Crick but if this is accepted and it shows that life did not have time to evolve they will likely claim that life did not originate on the earth but some other planet or somewhere else in the universe and was brought here by asteroids,comets,etc. But one way or another they will make sure it does not effect evolution. I keep hoping for the day when scientists will just let the chips fall where they may and be honest scientists and admit evolution is dead but I doubt they will.They protect the theory of evolution.

Now I know you'll disagree but the Gap Theory is the only creation interpretation that can take on the theory of evolution and defeat it. This is because pretty much the same evidence they look at with evolution glasses on better confirms the Gap Theory instead of the theory of evolution. I catch a lot of flack when I say this but once the evidence is laid out I really believe that based on pretty much the same evidence it will better confirm that there was a previous former world totally different than this world we now live in that perished,especially when even YEC's can explain why evolution is not true science. Blend it all together and the Gap Theory will be more believable based on the evidence than evolution is. Evolutionists do not want to tangle with a knowledgeable Gap Theory creationist,believe me.

[RickD]

From The New York Times:

• Geologists have discovered in Greenland evidence for ancient life in rocks that are 3.7 billion years old. The find, if confirmed, would make these fossils the oldest on Earth and may change scientific understanding of the origins of life.

For our TEs, I'm curious how this fits in with the evolutionary model for life's origins. If the dating is correct, and if the fossils really do represent biological life, then we have fully functional life--complete with all the things necessarily associated like DNA, protein synthesis, the works--existing at or during the "final rain of large asteroids [that] descended on Earth at the beginning of the ensuing Archaean stage" betwteen 3.8 and 3.9by ago. That's a pretty astronomical thought (pardon the pun) for me. To quote again from the article:

• Evidence of these ancient craters has vanished from Earth but is still evident in the pockmarked face of the moon. And for every crater on the moon, 20 would be expected to have been made on Earth.
  
  The moon has two craters more than 600 miles across that were created during the Late Heavy Bombardment. Some 40 craters this size may have been gouged out of our planet in the same interval, said William F. Bottke, an asteroid expert at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo.
  
  By comparison, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago left a crater only 110 miles in diameter.

So, it seems from my non-professional reading (assuming, of course, that the NYT is accurately reporting this) that life had 100 million years to go from not existing at all to becoming, well, rather complex. That boggles my mind. That would seem to me, again a non-professional, to suggest that life isn't something that just happened but rather is something almost inevitable, as if would just pop up anywhere and everywhere that the conditions were not "hellish." (Which, I note, is the conclusion of one of the scientists the article quotes, although I am quick to recognize that one man's interpretation of the evidence does not qualify as the scientific point of view.)

Anyway, again, my general question is how this fits in with the normal evolutionary scheme. It seems to me not so much to paint a picture of the mechanisms for the origin of life as much as it does about the nature of life itself, that it is a thing that is very readily produced. I don't think that's picture is consistent with what we've seen elsewhere in the universe so far--granted we have only studied a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny (x a few more hundred tinies) portion of it--but, still, that just seems a difficult position to defend.

So thoughts/clarifications?

Hi Jac here is what I think about it. First off scientists who accept evolution protect evolution,so this discovery will be debated by scientists that will make sure this does not effect or hurt evolution. I remember back when I was researching "Snow Ball Earth" which is a scientific hypothesis that at one time the earth became completely frozen at least one time in its past and when it was first proposed it was that the earth at least one time became completely frozen but it led to a scientific debate because of the theory of evolution so that scientists made sure it did not effect the theory of evolution. So the hypothesis was weakened to say it was mostly frozen but not completely so that life could survive it to evolve. So before it was accepted scientists made sure that it did not effect evolution. I expect them to do this in this case also. I think they will have to come up with a new theory to protect evolution before this will be accepted. It takes time for thinks to trickle out when it comes to science. Although it is really not a new theory but was first proposed by Francis Crick but if this is accepted and it shows that life did not have time to evolve they will likely claim that life did not originate on the earth but some other planet or somewhere else in the universe and was brought here by asteroids,comets,etc. But one way or another they will make sure it does not effect evolution. I keep hoping for the day when scientists will just let the chips fall where they may and be honest scientists and admit evolution is dead but I doubt they will.They protect the theory of evolution.

Now I know you'll disagree but the Gap Theory is the only creation interpretation that can take on the theory of evolution and defeat it. This is because pretty much the same evidence they look at with evolution glasses on better confirms the Gap Theory instead of the theory of evolution. I catch a lot of flack when I say this but once the evidence is laid out I really believe that based on pretty much the same evidence it will better confirm that there was a previous former world totally different than this world we now live in that perished,especially when even YEC's can explain why evolution is not true science. Blend it all together and the Gap Theory will be more believable based on the evidence than evolution is. Evolutionists do not want to tangle with a knowledgeable Gap Theory creationist,believe me.

OH...MY...GOD!!!

[Jac3510]

censored

OH...MY...GOD!!!

Please don't do that.

[RickD]

censored

OH...MY...GOD!!!

Please don't do that.

Please don't do what?

[Jac3510]

censored

That

In other words, I have a strong guess as to the content. Please don't tempt me to confirm it.

[RickD]

censored

That

In other words, I have a strong guess as to the content. Please don't tempt me to confirm it.

I'm not following you. I suspect you're seeing "censored", because you have ACB on ignore.

Maybe you should sign out, and read his post.

Actually, nevermind. You're better off ignoring it. It has absolutely no relevance to your question in your op.

It's your thread. His post has no relevance. I'll delete it if you want.

[Jac3510]

Haha, no, no reason to delete it. And actually, for me, it doesn't say "censored." It offers to display the post. My point is that you quoted him, and since I can read your posts . . . thus the temptation.

I am, though, hoping that one of our TEs weight in on the article. Another line points out that the chemistry of early life doesn't seem to allow it to happen in the ocean. So, given that, 100 million years seems to be a blink of an eye to go from nothing at all to the extremely complex entities that are even the simplest forms of life. Again, it looks to me like, on the evolutionary scheme, you would have to say there is something about the chemistry of life that is pretty much self-assembling, and by the chemistry of life I'm not even just talking about basic amino acid chains but rather the whole DNA/protein-synthesis kit and caboodle. That is what I'm having a hard time getting my mind around.

[RickD]

Haha, no, no reason to delete it. And actually, for me, it doesn't say "censored." It offers to display the post. My point is that you quoted him, and since I can read your posts . . . thus the temptation.

I am, though, hoping that one of our TEs weight in on the article. Another line points out that the chemistry of early life doesn't seem to allow it to happen in the ocean. So, given that, 100 million years seems to be a blink of an eye to go from nothing at all to the extremely complex entities that are even the simplest forms of life. Again, it looks to me like, on the evolutionary scheme, you would have to say there is something about the chemistry of life that is pretty much self-assembling, and by the chemistry of life I'm not even just talking about basic amino acid chains but rather the whole DNA/protein-synthesis kit and caboodle. That is what I'm having a hard time getting my mind around.

Ah, ok. So when I quote him, you can read it.

[abelcainsbrother]

censored

That

In other words, I have a strong guess as to the content. Please don't tempt me to confirm it.

I'm not following you. I suspect you're seeing "censored", because you have ACB on ignore.

Maybe you should sign out, and read his post.

Actually, nevermind. You're better off ignoring it. It has absolutely no relevance to your question in your op.

It's your thread. His post has no relevance. I'll delete it if you want.

I focused on this in the article

"It leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have accurred and puts the process close to a time when Earth was being bombarded by destructive asteroids."

and tried to tie it into Jac asking this

Anyway, again, my general question is how this fits in with the normal evolutionary scheme. It seems to me not so much to paint a picture of the mechanisms for the origin of life as much as it does about the nature of life itself, that it is a thing that is very readily produced.

I gave my opinion about the normal evolutionary scheme that I see. I probably could have left off the last part of my post but I believe it is a better theory based on the evidence.I actually left off something about the moon bombardment and the craters on its surface but I didn't want to get off track about this thread and possibly start an argument.

[RickD]

censored

That

In other words, I have a strong guess as to the content. Please don't tempt me to confirm it.

I'm not following you. I suspect you're seeing "censored", because you have ACB on ignore.

Maybe you should sign out, and read his post.

Actually, nevermind. You're better off ignoring it. It has absolutely no relevance to your question in your op.

It's your thread. His post has no relevance. I'll delete it if you want.

I focused on this in the article

"It leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have accurred and puts the process close to a time when Earth was being bombarded by destructive asteroids."

and tried to tie it into Jac asking this

Anyway, again, my general question is how this fits in with the normal evolutionary scheme. It seems to me not so much to paint a picture of the mechanisms for the origin of life as much as it does about the nature of life itself, that it is a thing that is very readily produced.

I gave my opinion about the normal evolutionary scheme that I see. I probably could have left off the last part of my post but I believe it is a better theory based on the evidence.I actually left off something about the moon bombardment and the craters on its surface but I didn't want to get off track about this thread and possibly start an argument.

Quote for Jac.

[B. W.]

Come on, please be civil with ACB,

You guys are Gapaphobics, shame on you

Please gentlemen let your humor evolve unto higher levels and conquer your shameful racist gapaphobia!

ABC has the right to to express himself.

Gapaphobics, what da ya du wit em?
-
-
-

[RickD]

Come on, please be civil with ABC,

You guys are Gapaphobics, shame on you

Please gentlemen let your humor evolve unto higher levels and conquer your shameful racist gapaphobia!

ABC has the right to to express himself.

Gapaphobics, what da ya du wit em?
-
-
-

Who is ABC? Any relation to ACB?

[Byblos]

Come on, please be civil with ABC,

You guys are Gapaphobics, shame on you

Please gentlemen let your humor evolve unto higher levels and conquer your shameful racist gapaphobia!

ABC has the right to to express himself.

Gapaphobics, what da ya du wit em?
-
-
-

Who is ABC? Any relation to ACB?

His gapalexic alter ego.