Life began in lakes?

[Byblos]

Don't know exactly what this means for abiogenesis/evolution/NS/RM/etc, but as per the linked article, the oldest animal fossils seem to have been found in lakes, not oceans as originally postulated. The prevailing theory was such that a stable environment was needed to cook up life from the primordial soup but that idea is negated by the latest discovery since lakes by nature are, first of all much more dispersed, and second, extremely unstable and temporary (given the long time span from microbial life to much more complex life forms).

Thoughts?

[Jac3510]

It doesn't look like they are talking about abiogenesis, but actual animals. In any case, this statement is still very interesting:

It remains possible, Kennedy noted, that animal fossils of similar or older age exist that remain to be found that are marine in origin. However, at the very least, this work suggests "that animals had already taken on the ability to deal with the environmental fluctuations one sees in lake environments," he said. "That suggests that their evolutionary response is much more rapid that I would have supposed, and that the earliest animals were far more diverse than imagined."

No matter how far back we go, we keep getting diversity. I wonder what that points to . . . hmmmmm . . .

[WConn]

Okay, help me out here. Someone references a scientific article dealing with the early formation of life forms. How do we square this with Genesis?

At my stage of the game, I don't have a difficult time seeing Genesis thru evolution. We know there was a beginning just as the big bang theory suggests. The Bible says God made man from the dust of the earth and blew life into him. This article suggests that early life forms were the result of combining chemicals until more and more complex cellular life forms developed.

Maybe evolution was God's way or creation? Are we asked to believe that God created Adam as quickly as Genesis suggests or might this have been a longer process more aligned with evolution? I am just asking questions. My background is medical science not theology.

Thanks for the help.

W

[hopefulcynic]

The article talks about the origins of animals, not of life itself.

Curiously, I wasn't able to find the original article. The link you gave suggests that the article was published in the July 27th edition of PNAS. However, there is no July 27th edition of PNAS. I also checked the most recent edition (today's) and I couldn't find it there either.

[Jac3510]

W,

Both science and Genesis believe life came about at some finite time in the past. What they disagree on is the method. Now, I'll tell you upfront that there are some theologians who accept evolution as being true--they are called theistic evolutionists. I'm not one of them, and most of the people here aren't. Rich Deem, the owner of the site, isn't. The biggest problem with evolution from a theological perspective is the historicity of Adam. Some people believe that God used evolution to create man and then picked one "manlike" creature and turned him into the biblical Adam, but that still doesn't square with Genesis 2-3. You still have Eve being created miraculously and being called "the mother of all the living." You still have the whole Garden of Eden incident, etc.

Most theistic evolutionists, then, take Gen 2-3 as some sort of pious myth. That, however, creates problems in the NT, because the NT treats Adam as being a real person. In fact, if you get right down to it, the entire doctrine of salvation rests on the doctrine of the Fall, which presupposes a literal Adam. No Adam = No Fall = No need for the Cross.

Concerning evolution itself, I know that it's the height of blasphemy to say this, but it's not science. At best, it's forensic science. But fundamentally, it isn't science at all. It's a philosophy. Take, for example, the field of homology and consider the following picture:



So here we have the limbs of various vertebrates. They are certainly structurally similar, and this is taken to be evidence for evolution. More specifically, it is taken to mean that all of these came from a common ancestor. But there are several problems with this.

First, taken this way, it really is no evidence for evolution at all. It could just as well be evidence of common design rather than common descent. Frankly, it's evidence for neither as it fits into both systems rather well. But secondly, there are many structures throughout nature that are very similar but we know have no common descent. The common example of this are the octopus and human eye. They are very similar, but clearly that does not mean they have the same ancestor (for more on this, look up the phenomenon of convergence). So, actually, it turns out not to be very good evidence for evolution at all.

Darwinists recognized this years ago, so they decided to redefine homology. It was no longer the study of structural pattens in nature. Under the original system, the octopus and human eyes were clearly homologous. But since that proves that homology is no evidence for evolution (too many counter-examples are available), it was redefined to mean features inherited from a common ancestor. Now, we can't call the octopus and human eyes homologous, but we can call the bat and human arm homologous, because the latter to are known to have descended from a common ancestor.

Do you see the problem here? Under the new definition, homology ceases to be evidence for evolution, because you can only declare things homologous once you know they evolved from a common ancestor. Thus, you have to presume evolution to claim things are homologous. You cannot, then, turn around and use your presumption as evidence of your position!

Now, evolutionists have the right to define homology however they will. But note that this is philosophical. They decide, before they see the data, that evolution is true and that things are homologous if they already know them to be from a common ancestor. That presumption is philosophical, not scientific.

At the end of the day, a non-theist has NO choice but to believe in evolution. The non-theist believes evolution is true no matter what the evidence is for or against it, because it is a necessary consequence of his worldview, and that, my friend is the rub. Evolution isn't a science. It's the necessary consequence of a philosophy.

In that case, the issue of squaring Genesis with evolution becomes a moot point. We don't have to. Contrary to popular belief, you can be very rational and reject evolution. And I'm convinced by the evidence I've seen that evolution does not tell the right story of reality. Intelligent Design does.

[WConn]

Jac,

Can one be a Christian and still believe that there is some correlation between Genesis and Evolution? I understand that Rich and others might not agree with this.

W

[Jac3510]

Of course you can, W. Belief in evolution isn't a cardinal doctrine. I don't think it fits theologically, but I'm sure there are parts of my theology that I've not fully considered and don't fit either. Hopefully God will reveal them to me and I can correct my views where I err.

The reason I make such a big deal about evolution being a philosophy and not a science is precisely this point. Just like people don't accept it on scientific points, they don't reject it on scientific points, either. So there's just as much sense trying to get you to reject evolution (not saying you do or don't accept it, just speaking in general terms) until I get you to reject the philosophy that makes it necessary. And the easiest way to do that is to talk about the important things, i.e., the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, the existence of God, the supremacy of Christianity as both religion and worldview, etc.

[IgoFan]

[...] Now, evolutionists have the right to define homology however they will. But note that this is philosophical. They decide, before they see the data, that evolution is true and that things are homologous if they already know them to be from a common ancestor. That presumption is philosophical, not scientific.

Reading this forum to understand evolution is like watching Rocky movies for a boxing tutorial.

Why are scientists so confident of the common ancestry of animals? The actual answer isn't in this web site's articles section or this forum, much less this thread.

The same goes for even more basic crucial questions, e.g., Why are scientists so sure the Earth is 4.55 billion years old? In the articles section, only 2 snippets make even a passing reference to the actual answer. And those snippets do not give any of the truly amazing details or even hint at why that answer is so overwhelmingly robust and accurate.

First, learn these basics. Hint: watching Rocky movies won't help.

[warhoop]

Please, enlighten us.

[cslewislover]

[...] Now, evolutionists have the right to define homology however they will. But note that this is philosophical. They decide, before they see the data, that evolution is true and that things are homologous if they already know them to be from a common ancestor. That presumption is philosophical, not scientific.

Reading this forum to understand evolution is like watching Rocky movies for a boxing tutorial.

Why are scientists so confident of the common ancestry of animals? The actual answer isn't in this web site's articles section or this forum, much less this thread.

The same goes for even more basic crucial questions, e.g., Why are scientists so sure the Earth is 4.55 billion years old? In the articles section, only 2 snippets make even a passing reference to the actual answer. And those snippets do not give any of the truly amazing details or even hint at why that answer is so overwhelmingly robust and accurate.

First, learn these basics. Hint: watching Rocky movies won't help.

IgoFan, before you blithely attack people's education and knowledge concerning a subject, you should check things out more (you shouldn't be attacking in such manner anyway: "I'm smart, you guys are morons, etc."). This article, http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html, located at the main site, cites a very great number of top scientific articles. It is written for readers of the site, however, and not necessarily other PhD researchers. The owner of the site and many of the posters here understand evolution just fine, they just don't agree with everything everyone claims about it, is all. And I have no idea why you're bringing up the age of the earth. This article at the main site presents the evidence for an old earth and universe: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/ageofearth.html

[IgoFan]

This article, http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html, located at the main site, cites a very great number of top scientific articles. It is written for readers of the site, however, and not necessarily other PhD researchers.

Your reference supports my point. That anti-evolution article understandably doesn't have anything to do with my question about why scientists are so confident of common ancestry. If all I read were those articles, and posts like Jac3510's above, I would be skeptical of common ancestry also.

The owner of the site and many of the posters here understand evolution just fine, they just don't agree with everything everyone claims about it, is all.

But the posts and articles don't fairly represent science's understanding on the common ancestry of animals. How would an evolutionary biologist simply defend his enormous confidence in common ancestry? Why doesn't such a response appear on this site, if nothing else, as a devil's advocate position?

And I have no idea why you're bringing up the age of the earth. This article at the main site presents the evidence for an old earth and universe: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/ageofearth.html

The age of the Earth is an EXAMPLE of how even the simplest important creation questions aren't answered simply and persuasively from science's perspective.

Again, if all I read was from the link you gave (2 of the external links are broken), I would be extremely skeptical of science's rough estimate of the age of the Earth, much less the seeming hubris of stating that the Earth is precisely 4.55 (and not 4.7 or 4.4) billion years old. But how would a geologist simply defend his near certainty of that precise age? I've looked and I cannot find that answer on this website. Investigating Evidence for God from Science is meaningless without first representing science fairly.

[ageofknowledge]

Read this:



'Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off' by Fuz Rana