Fossil evidence in WA suggests microbial life evolved in ponds on land

www.news.com.au... cd647d4e9e34dd0f7a6a6a08601f9

Possible fixed link?: www.news.com.au... cd647d4e9e34dd0f7a6a6a08601f9?utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Clipboard

Hi Everyone,

So, what's half a billion year among friends huh?.......Well, it turns out quite a bit if your looking how we started. In fact, half a billion years is a huge amount when you're talking about....er, I don't know.........ONLY THE START OF LIFE ON EARTH!

ANCIENT fossil evidence discovered in Western Australia could dramatically change our understanding of how life began on Earth, vindicate a discarded 19th century theory by Charles Darwin and boost chances we find alien life of Mars. The fossil discovery was made by scientists at the University of New South Wales, who found what they believe to be evidence of early life in 3.48 billion-year-old hot spring deposits in the Pilbara. It pushes back our earliest known trace of life on terrestrial land by more than half a billion years

The discovery could mean that the first spark of life actually emerged in a hot spring on land rather than a hydrothermal vent in the deep sea.

Which is significant and more likely, when you take a look at a petri dish. Life tends to flourish in a shallow warm environment as opposed to deeper colder habitats. To me it would be a more likely scenario. But hey, just my thoughts.

Anyway, take a look at my home state and tell me your thoughts?!
www.news.com.au... cd647d4e9e34dd0f7a6a6a08601f9

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Your link is broke.

I will reserve my opinion until they name the scientists and more sources are involved.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

The scientists who are working the site are UNSW PhD student Tara Djokic, Professors Martin Van Kranendonk, Malcolm Walter and Colin Ward, as well as Professor Kathleen Campbell of the University of Auckland and the paper was published in the journal Nature Communications. I'm trying to find access to the actual paper right now but I don't subscribe to this particular journal so no promises but I'm going to try to get a link for the actual data.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you Peter. Excellent work. Awesome.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Ok, here we go. The paper is open source and not hidden behind a pay wall. I haven't read beyond the abstract yet but wanted to get this up sonorgers could review the data themselves.

www.nature.com...

Assuming that life "evolved", fossil evidence in WA suggests microbial life evolved in ponds on land.

Its not an objective fact.

originally posted by: firefromabove
Assuming that life "evolved", fossil evidence in WA suggests microbial life evolved in ponds on land.

Its not an objective fact.

Could you tell me which part of the paper is in error? Or perhaps a citation demonstrating a falsification of MES? If there's a paper that shows that, I would love to check it out, thanks.

a reply to: firefromabove

Life does evolve, Darwins Finches prove it.

a reply to: cenpuppie

A change in bird beak shapes is not evidence that reptiles became birds, land mammals became whales, single celled organisms became multi cellular organisms and so on, as claimed by evolutionists. There is no real evidence to support these tall stories of evolution. Just conjecture and speculation.

To say "evolution is true, therefore these things happened" is circular reasoning.

a reply to: firefromabove

If you even have a basic understanding of the process of DNA splits, and how faults occur in reproduction, it's incredibly easy to fathom all of these things over time.

To suggest the organisms now even remotely resemble the ones of the past is the insanity. They don't. "Evolve" or not, change is absolutely undeniable.

a reply to: peter vlar

"Papers" written under the assumption that evolution is true is not objective fact. Its simply speculative data... for evolutionists by evolutionists

Its like astrologers writing paper about planets affecting peoples lives. It's useless because the assumption that planets affect peoples lives is completely bogus to begin with.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

To suggest the organisms now even remotely resemble the ones of the past is the insanity. They don't. "Evolve" or not, change is absolutely undeniable.

They've found bugs in amber that are supposedly hundreds of millions years old. They resemble their modern day counterparts. They haven't changed much.

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Mordekaiser

To suggest the organisms now even remotely resemble the ones of the past is the insanity. They don't. "Evolve" or not, change is absolutely undeniable.

They've found bugs in amber that are supposedly hundreds of millions years old. They resemble their modern day counterparts. They haven't changed much.

It's still impossible to not change at all though.

Evolution has 2 parts to it that are confusing for some.

1. No specific conditions are required for evolution. It happens by genetic chance. Condition is what leads to dominance.

2. Evolution itself does not promise the species or gene will become dominant.

I have a friend who has an extra Peronius Tetius tendon in their feet, and so does her mother, and she can run faster in burst because of it than others. This is meaningless to Human survival despite the interest by Scientists in her genes. Still worth observation that specific genes not die out because of it and we study what we can.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

It's still impossible to not change at all though

I'm not against the idea of change

creatures have changed over the years, but not to the extent that reptiles became birds or that single celled organisms became multi celled organisms...as claimed by evolutionists.

Maybe ordinary dogs did come from
a wild type of canine, but its "lineage" certainly cannot be traced back to some sea dwelling creature.

So Darwin was thinking straight, as always.

But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. -- Letter to Joseph Hooker, 1871

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: peter vlar

"Papers" written under the assumption that evolution is true is not objective fact. Its simply speculative data... for evolutionists by evolutionists

So have you read the paper or did you just dismiss it entirely without doing so? You're still throwing out BS strawman arguments and not supporting your statements with anything resembling facts. To say that evolution has never occurred
mean that you don't believe in Biplogy, Chemistry, Physics, Genetics, Geology, the entire field of Medicine (which is entirely nased on biology) and literally every single scientific discipline studied on earth. You're telling me that there is an international conspiracy amongst all scientists to propagate a falsehood to support what is as of now the most widely sourced, evidenced and proven theory in the history of science. There is literally more evidence for Evolution than there is for Gravity.

Its like astrologers writing paper about planets affecting peoples lives. It's useless because the assumption that planets affect peoples lives is completely bogus to begin with.

Not even remotely similar concepts. Astrology can easily be falsified. Please show me evidence that falsifies evolution. Don't worry... I know you can't and won't because you've never actually read up on the topic and see just parroting what someone else tells you.

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't need to read papers written under the false assumption that evolution is true

Don't worry, you can cling on to those "papers" as if they are your holy scriptures all you want.

a reply to: firefromabove

You're right... you don't need to read papers by professional scientists that expand your knowledge on a subject, even when those papers have an impartial approach, yet still find in favour of evolution.

It is your prerogative to remain ignorant on a subject and spout completely unsubstantiated claims, though it diminishes the validity of your arguments, and can come across as uneducated.

You are also more than welcome to actually read some of the literature (of the hundreds of thousands of articles that support evolution), and back up your claims by scientifically arguing that all those papers were written under a false assumption. Or try to find a paper with a scientific argument against evolution or supporting intelligent design (I suspect you will be hard pressed to do that... it will also be a lot of work, and is easier to make ignorant statements).

In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Or finally, you could suggest an alternative hypothesis to evolution that best fits all of the available evidence... the academic world actually love that, and you would be famous!

I look forward to reading your amazing scientific breakthrough on the nature of the development of life.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

(of the hundreds of thousands of articles that support evolution

The problem is that all those papers were written under the assumption that evolution is true.

Arguments in favor of evolution are not the same as evidence for evolution.

Its like shooting arrows first and painting bulls eyes around them wherever they hit.

you could suggest an alternative hypothesis to evolution that best fits all of the available evidence... the academic world actually love that, and you would be famous

The academic world is dogmatic and closed off to any alternates to the existing model (evolution). The only thing they love are more papers written in support of evolution.

a reply to: firefromabove

Are you an academic?

Contrary to your belief, not all of those papers were written under the assumption that evolution is true. Many of them are questioning various aspects of evolution from a non-biased starting point and seeing what the data tells them (especially researchers with a religious background). The kudos in discovering a new paradigm would be huge, and your average researcher would be overjoyed to be able to fundamentally shift our understanding of evolution.

Also many of those papers aren't arguments at all, but purely data gathering and analysis focused (evidence based data). The reality is that the hundreds of thousands of directly evolution focused, indirectly focused and not focused at all papers that tangentially confirm the theory of evolution all point to the general model of MES (Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) being the best current description of all the evidence. As the point made in peter vlar's post suggests, evolution is currently the most supported scientific theory of all time, not least of which was furthered by so many people (usually religious) trying to disprove it throughout the ages; evolution deniers have literally pushed science to be more sure about evolution than almost any other concept.

Again, I implore you to suggest an alternative avenue of research for the development of species through the ages (Intelligent Design is the best alternative, yet has zero evidence supporting it beyond faith, and no viable and testable research question associated with it)... as far as I can see, there is literally nothing you can suggest that better describes the available evidence than MES.

Even if you can suggest a viable framework for an alternative, it would still have to incorporate many aspects of MES that have already been completely and undeniably confirmed, meaning that any new theory would at least in part be very similar to evolution.