It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The fossilised remains of the oldest known lifeforms on Earth have been discovered in samples of rock collected near a remote watering hole in the middle of the Australian Outback.
Scientists said that the microscopic fossils belonged to primitive bacteria that lived more than 3.4 billion years ago, when the Earth had emerged from a period when it was probably too hostile for life. The primitive microbes used sulphur instead of oxygen to generate energy from food and, the scientists said, they may be the closest that science will ever get to the mysterious origin of life on Earth.
The fossils were found in rocks that were originally formed in shallow seas near a coastline and suggest that beaches may have been the key habitat where the Earth's first lifeforms thrived, said David Wacey, of the University of Western Australia.
Originally posted by Ghost375
"Life's a beach, and I'm just playin in the sand."
-Tunechi
Originally posted by Atzil321
Lifeforms 3.4 BILLION YEARS OLD have been found in Australia, making them the oldest
known life ever discovered, and adding to the already overwhelming evidence in favour of
darwinian evolution.
Originally posted by Pimander
That is not evidence of anything other than that there was life 3.4 million years ago.
Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
Sorry mate but it doesn't. It says nothing at all about the mechanism.
Originally posted by Pimander
P.S. I am an expert in molecular genetics
Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
Sorry mate but it doesn't. It says nothing at all about the mechanism.
First of all, I was not commenting on, "all the information we have," as you very well know. Stop trying to change the subject just because I am clearly right! I was saying that the OP was only evidence that there was life a long time ago.
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
If you have an alternate theory for this, please post it. I'd be interested. Bonus points if it's model fits into all the information we already have, as Evolution by Natural Selection does.
Source: lamarcksevolution.com...
Lamarck was the first to present an evolutionary theory although no-one believed him. According to Lamarck, organisms are continuously being more complex by actively adapting to their environment in contrast to Darwin's dogma stating that changes were random and selection has a role in keeping the fittest individual. Throughout the past years, researches supporting Lamarck's theory are starting to accumulate. It seems that adaptation can be deliberate and is probably mediated by epigenetic changes.
Source: Balter. Was Lamarck Just a Little Bit Right? (Science, 2000)
Although Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is remembered mostly for the discredited theory that acquired traits can be passed down to offspring, new findings in the field of epigenetics, the study of changes in genetic expression that are not linked to alterations in DNA sequences, are returning his name to the scientific literature. Although these new findings do not support Lamarck's overall concept, they raise the possibility that "epimutations," as they are called, could play a role in evolution.
I'm not arguing for creationism here. I tried to make that clear before. Apologies if I gave that impression.
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Do you think, if the average person was researching Darwinian evolution, and other theories, that seeing this would put any extra reason to go with Darwinian evolution? Especially when you factor the Intelligent design deal into it? Or would it make no difference? Or would it harm it?
I'd say it'd be extra reason, even if it'd also be extra reason to go with some other evolutionary theories, supporting them too, it still is supporting Darwins Theory.
Originally posted by Pimander
I'm not arguing for creationism here. I tried to make that clear before. Apologies if I gave that impression.