How can Darwinists still defend the theory of evolution? There is mounting evidence in the fossil record that it is bunk.
>A new fossil discovery makes it even tougher for Darwinists to explain the origin of life.
>There’s an old story about a chemist, a physicist, and an economist stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but a can of soup. Puzzling over how to open the can, the chemist says, “Let’s heat the can until it swells and bursts from the buildup of gases.” “No, no,” says the physicist, “let’s throw it off that cliff with just enough kinetic energy to split it open on the rocks below.” The economist, after thinking a moment says, “Assume a can opener.”
>There’s more than one trade that deals in assumptions. The way Darwinists approach the origin of life is a lot like that economist’s idea for opening the can. The Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection explains everything about life, we’re told—except how it began. “Assume a self-replicating cell containing information in the form of genetic code,” Darwinists are forced to say. Well, fine. But where did that little miracle come from?
>A new discovery makes explaining even that first cell tougher still. Fossils unearthed by Australian scientists in Greenland may be the oldest traces of life ever discovered. A team from the University of Wollongong recently published their findings in the journal “Nature,” describing a series of structures called “stromatolites” that emerged from receding ice.
>“Stromatolites” may sound like something your doctor would diagnose, but they’re actually biological rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow water. If you visit the Bahamas today, you can see living stromatolites.
>What’s so special about them? Well, they appear in rocks most scientists date to 220 million years older than the oldest fossils, which pushes the supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.
>This, admits the New York Times, “complicate[s] the story of evolution of early life from chemicals ... .” No kidding! According to conventional geology, these microbe colonies existed on the heels of a period when Earth was undergoing heavy asteroid bombardment, making it virtually uninhabitable. This early date, adds The Times, “leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred..."
>That is an understatement. These life forms came into existence virtually overnight, writes David Klinghoffer at Evolution News and Views. “[g]enetic code, proteins, photosynthesis, the works.”
>This appearance of fully-developed life forms so early in the fossil record led Dr. Abigail Allwood of Caltech to remark that “life [must not be] a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing.” Rather, “[i]t will emerge whenever there’s an opportunity.”
>Pardon me? If life occurs so spontaneously and predictably even under the harshest conditions, then it should be popping up all over the place! Yet scientists still cannot come close to producing even a single cell from raw chemicals in the lab.
Caleb Torres
>Dr. Stephen Meyer explains in his book “Signature in the Cell” why this may be Darwinism’s Achilles heel. In order to begin evolution by natural selection, you need a self-replicating unit. But the cell and its DNA blueprint are too complicated by far to have arisen through chance chemical reactions. The odds of even a single protein forming by accident are astronomical. So Meyer and other Intelligent Design theorists conclude that Someone must have designed and created the structures necessary for life.
>Meanwhile Darwinists, faced with a fossil record that theoretically pushes the origin of life back further into the past, are forced to assume the metaphorical can opener. They just don’t know how these early cells came into existence, and the more we dig up, the more improbable—rather than likely—life becomes.
>For them at least.
Camden Sanchez
Darwinism is the worst fucking meme of all time. And every time you question it people assume you are a Christian fundie. I fucking hate them so much. They're just cultists.
>yo dawg just random chance that some random extremely complex and like, super beneficial structures random emerged ONE TIME in a SINGLE organism, but this RANDOM SPOOKY MUTATION was so good, that this individual reproduced more than the others in its species.
Charles Davis
You know what I'm not gonna even bother with poking holes in your reasoning or anything what I am going to do is ask one question: What caused life to arise and form into the complexity it has today?
Justin Harris
>pshhhh im not even gonna BOTHER arguing, because evolution, although neither observable, or replicable is completely infallible.
Andrew Cooper
Okay so you are just a troll otherwise you'd never leave the obvious gaping asshole of antibiotic resistance in your response exposed.
Michael Martin
Darwin has never attempted to explain the origin of life, only the origin of species.
A theory being incomplete does not make it false.
Brody Lopez
Just report, don't reply
Benjamin Gonzalez
Darwinists are the ones making the claim, and attempting to prove the theory. I posit nothing, I simply deny the Darwinian model of evolution is correct.
David Morris
>don't say something I don't like
you're honestly just a little faggot millenial who needs a safe space to shelter himself from things he doesn't want to hear. people like you are ruining civilization.
Parker Cook
...
William Walker
Lol, you sound mad as fuck
Hudson Howard
>there are people with an IQ this low every time even if this is bait
Cameron Ortiz
Actually science has produced proteins using primordial atmosphere gases and electricity, substituted for lightning.
Angel Edwards
1. Have you actually read "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection" (1859) by Charles Darwin (1809-1882).
2. /this
3. Do you have an intelligently thought out alternative or is this just bait?
>Darwinists are the ones making the claim What specific claim are "they" making. See # 2. above (read # 1 some day)
Carson Flores
Evolution explains how life changes to adapt to its environment over time.
Abiogenisis is a completely different process which explain how life can emerge from non life.
We know far more about evolution than we do abiogenisis because we have billions of species and their genetic codes to study, while abiogenisis occurred billions of years ago and stopped once life became prevalent enough to consume all the prebiotic chemicals and create an environment non conducive to the formation of new life.
What we need to do is to study enough about the formation and early conditions of the Earth, what chemicals were common, what mineral catalysts existed, and so forth. Then we have to dedicate a lot of lab time to replicating early Earth environments, studying how chemicals interacted and changed each other, and narrow down on our ideas about how early protolife systems developed.
Luis Perry
>Evolution >Origin of life Discarded.
John Rodriguez
Why would someone assume that abiogenesis requires huge amounts of time? And why would someone assume that life could not thrive during heavy bombardment?
Wiki says bombardment lasted until about 3.8 by ago and these new fossils were 3.7 by old. Why would 100 million years be too little time? Even if life was found in 4.46 by old rocks it wouldn't matter. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. All it would suggest is that abiogenesis might be easy and common and the universe might be full of life.
Thomas Jenkins
...
Logan Campbell
Can you just summarize what it says? I don't wanna dick around to read all them words.
Camden Watson
strong in the gong, marine anons hometown dropping science like galileio dropped an orange
Carter Wilson
>Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. All it would suggest is that abiogenesis might be easy and common and the universe might be full of life.
/thread
Andrew Fisher
> not understand abiogenesis
I bet you believe in a young earth, too
Jack Hernandez
>“Stromatolites” may sound like something your doctor would diagnose
fucking kek, stopped reading here
did martha stewart write this
Jaxon Allen
great thread
Michael Ortiz
Soooo the point of this thread is to point out that life turned up earlier than we thought. Is that it?
Robert Harris
Did you just imply that the fossil record proves evolution wrong?
Like, for real?
Is that a thing that you just did?
Colton Gutierrez
It's to point out how dumb creationfags are, actually.
Jace Flores
I mean, if we're being fair, nobody REALLY understands abiogenesis. It's the part of evolution we have the least amount of information on.
Logan Taylor
Do some sequence alignments of related species
how do you think they change very subtly across species and we can measure this using Bayesian statistics and phylogenetics
The fossil record is whatever
Tyler Davis
You are completely wrong. It has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is genetic change in population (over time/generations). The Theory of Evolution describes the mechanisms of evolution and how it happens. Evolution is not abiogenesis.
Nolan Butler
OK, let me amend my statement. Abiogenesis is the part of the history of life we probably have the least amount of information on.
Ryan Barnes
The only evidence mounting is the evidence that you are a massively autistic troll.
I'm not gonna bother refuting you, because your post doesn't deserve refutation. It deserves mockery and derision.
Go read The Origin of the Species, and then we'll give you a proper intellectual trouncing.
John Ortiz
Abiogenesis doesn't even sound all that implausible, people always seem to disregard the total lack of competition in the early evolution. Just a crappy self-replicating protein that works 1% of the time would be enough to kickstart life.
If you've got an ocean full of competitive chemical soup you can bet that soup's bound for flavortown over geological timescales
Matthew Hughes
Yeah this is basically true. There are dozens of plausible theories as to how it happened but pretty much all of the evidence has been erased and it is extremely hard to recreate under modern conditions.
Although as has been pointed out before the early stages of the process have been replicated in the lab under plausible early earth conditions
David Taylor
>evolution is a phenomenon of belief which, in the latter cases such as macro evolution and ultimately speciation, is believed by many scientists. The issue that is called into question is the following: why is it that these "scientists" purportedly belief in such a phenomena? if these textbooks and opinions are to be maximally believed, then this must mean that evolution is the case and is a fact. however, the case many not be so, precisely. one problem with the opinion is the EVIDENCE... there are usually drawings in books and textbooks that demonstrate the transition from fossil to human. However, how is it possible that a single fossil would be able to give rise to all human creativity? This point is bolstered by the fact taht these drawings are just that: DRAWINGS. There are no actual fossils/animals to go along with the drawings, merely an artist's creativity, which, though applausable in the right circumference, is unfortunately out of place in the realm of scientific inquesitionings. Many scientists are simply victims of sociological manipulation of their superiors who are under the spell of the monolithic science figure of Richard Darwins, therefore they are willing to belive in and work under the stipulation of the "theory" without the correct amounts of fortuitous evidence.
Colton Foster
>Darwinists to explain the origin of life Darwin didn't concern himself with the origin of life, or else he would have called his work 'The Origin of Life'.
Liam Hall
The proof of evolution is genetics and the fact we have observed it happening. Fossils are helpful for learning the history of life
John Anderson
Wow! So you're saying that DNA reveals a pattern of genetic relationships that is consistent with evolutionary theory? Sounds pretty inconsistent with creationism!
Noah Taylor
>So you're saying that DNA reveals a pattern of genetic relationships that is consistent with evolutionary theory It does
>Sounds pretty inconsistent with creationism! It is. There is no good reason whatsoever for the absurdly clear pattern if everything was independently created, unless the creator was deliberately trying to trick us into thinking things evolved
Justin Hughes
>The economist, after thinking a moment says, “Assume a can opener.” Sounds more like something a mathematician would say
David Russell
That sounds reasonable to me! If the theory of evolution was developed prior to the discovery of DNA, then that means that DNA can be used as a test for predictions made by evolution. I.E. species postulated to be more closely related would have more similar DNA. The fact that those predictions are borne out in the facts just goes to strengthen the validity of the theory!
Nolan Ross
No paper = Not science
Gabriel Davis
>Darwin
>mfw "scientists" actually believe that evolution is random
goes to figure that they were all ugly as SIN
Ryder Davis
We now assume life originated either very fast, in this 100 million year-span, or earlier, and survived the late heavy bombardment. Either hypothesis is somewhat plausible.
Jose Mitchell
>evolution is random Darwins whole point was that it is NOT random
Eli Young
>We found evidence of life that's older than other evidence of life that we've previously found >DARWINISTS BTFO XDD Can someone explain this logic?
Samuel Kelly
>Not random >Driven exclusively by outside forces >Outside forces are completely random >An organism also has no power over its own evolution Really brilliant stuff, abstracting life itself into inanimate theoretical features
Nathaniel Taylor
I think the idea OP was going for was that it makes abiogenesis less likely because it has less time to occur and harsher conditions to occur in
Caleb Morris
And that would be a fucking dumb thing for a creator to do. unless he wanted us to believe that there was no creator for some reason.
I don't actually believe this, but it's an interesting thought none the less. I figure I'd post it.
Joshua Hill
>Not random Correct
>Driven exclusively by outside forces Not entirely sure what you mean, but possibly correct
>Outside forces are completely random Nope
>An organism also has no power over its own evolution Again not sure precisely what you mean, but mostly correct
>abstracting life itself into inanimate theoretical features ...yes?
Juan Torres
Its hard to judge the motivations of a hypothetical creator. The point is that every pattern is consistent with creation, but only one that is consistent with evolution, which is the one we see
John Gonzalez
I mean, sure, but it's still not exactly "overnight." We're still talking about millions, if not billions, of years.
Nicholas Peterson
Its gone from a 500million year window to a 400million year window, all of modern biology trembles at the implications
Tyler Thomas
What makes you think the first living thing came directly from chemicals?
You are aware things like viruses exist.
Christopher Cook
/thread
Joshua Davis
>You are aware things like viruses exist Viruses evolved from complex life, not the other way around. Your point is valid in general though
Benjamin Perez
Evolution still works with the idea of panspermia.
Fucking comets man!
Robert Robinson
If evolution isn't real, then why did God create niggers?
Joshua Smith
>making such an effort for blatant creationism-posting
You don't even deserve a refutation. Just report it guys.
