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.

 

Life's a beach

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
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.




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.


There were none of these babies on the ark thats for sure www.independent.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
"Life's a beach, and I'm just playin in the sand."
-Tunechi



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
"Life's a beach, and I'm just playin in the sand."
-Tunechi


Words to live by.

=)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

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.

That is not evidence of anything other than that there was life 3.4 million years ago.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
That is not evidence of anything other than that there was life 3.4 million years ago.


Microscopic life 3.4 billion years ago. Somehow, over a few billion years we went from microscopic to fully developed mammals.

Definitely supports Darwinian evolution, as no other current hypothesis would explain such a transition.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 

Sorry mate but it doesn't. It says nothing at all about the mechanism.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 

Sorry mate but it doesn't. It says nothing at all about the mechanism.

Genetics on the other hand says everything about the mechanism. It's not up for discussion any longer. Fact is, all life we know on Earth shares a common ancestor.

The tree looks something like this


edit on 24-8-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

Agreed. That is pretty likely. However, the OP is not evidence of that at all. It is just evidence there was life then. If you ant grasp that then you are really beyond hope.


P.S. I am an expert in molecular genetics - I can already suck eggs.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

P.S. I am an expert in molecular genetics


Care to share opinion on these then:

1. The Eukaryotic cell first acquired (A) mitochondria or (B) a nucleus?

2. The nucleus was acquired via (A) endosymbiosis or (B) autogenesis or (C) other, explain.

3. The most likely reason why the Eukaryotic cell acquired a nucleus is ... (fill in blank).

4. A phylum in the domain bacteria called ... (fill in blank) contains a nucleus like compartment. Is it an (A) analog or (B) a homolog of the Eukaryotic nucleus?

edit.

5. Being an expert and all.. maybe you can tell me how to determine in silico exact exon-intron junction sites in a mitochondrial genome. Can't have ESTs because there's no polyA tails in mt mRNA. Suppose you can't do clustal multiple alignment as no related species (their mitochondria) have been annotated to date.
edit on 24-8-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 

Sorry mate but it doesn't. It says nothing at all about the mechanism.


I agree that this alone doesn't say anything about how evolution occurred. All it says is that there was simple life before complex life. Which fits perfectly into the Darwinian model, that's why it supports it without actually being evidence. Similar to a cop finding out that the main suspect(who was suspected by loads of other evidence) was seen around the crime scene before it happened. Doesn't prove him guilty alone, but it does support the theory of his guilt.

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.

Though, if you want to go beyond posting the alternate theory, and go into debate over the validity of Darwins theory, please use a new thread for that. This one's too interesting to let be derailed.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that evolution by natural selection is not a reality.
 


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.
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.

Ever heard of the inheritance of acquired characteristics? It's also known as Lamarckian inheritance or Lamarckism. It was largely discredited but has made a bit of a comeback recently. That theory would also explain the data in the OP - which is what I was commenting on.


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: lamarcksevolution.com...

Although in the light of evidence not in this thread, it can only be at most a part of the answer, it would explain the OP data.

Here is a relatively recent paper reviving some of his ideas.


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.
Source: Balter. Was Lamarck Just a Little Bit Right? (Science, 2000)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
Yes I could give my answer to any of those. However, that has sweet FA to do with the simple fact that I was right about the OP - which is ONLY evidence that there was life a long time ago. Have you grasped that yet? Try reading the OP again. What is the discovery of ancient prokaryotes evidence of?

Or are you just trying to argue with me because you think I am saying something that I am obviously not saying. What a ridiculous post. What has got you so excited?


edit on 24/8/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


First of all, thanks for that information. I'd thought of similar theories to Lamarcks, but only as mind play. I never lend it any credence because I'd never seen any scientist talk about the possibility that adaptations in an individuals life could affect the genetics of it's offspring.

Secondly, I was specific about not letting the topic being changed. Not trying to change it.

Third, I specifically said it wasn't evidence. For being so 'clearly right', you seem to fail to comprehend what I was saying. I was saying it fits into the model, which means it supports the theory. I tried to differentiate evidence and support in my post. Yes, it's semantics, but I made my definition very clear.

It's relevant information, that proves what you'd expect from Darwinian evolution. It's not proof, obviously. I say it's not evidence for the same reason you say it isn't. It's just that it's information that fits with our understanding of evolution, supporting our theory.

Also, considering how evolutions biggest adversary is the "theory" of intelligent design, and I'm sure this is what the author of the article was thinking, that since this doesn't fit with Intelligent design and does fit with Darwins theory, it supports Darwins theory in contrast.

Forth, understand the concept of "bonus points". It was just a side point.

~
If you want to declare a difference in semantics, go ahead. But don't declare me wrong because of wording I even disagreed with.

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.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

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.
I'm not arguing for creationism here. I tried to make that clear before. Apologies if I gave that impression.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
I'm not arguing for creationism here. I tried to make that clear before. Apologies if I gave that impression.


No, I know your not. You made it clear enough. I was talking about creationism in general, not in you specifically.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

The recent Lamarkian revolution (in the form of epigenesis) is a joke and is merely a media creation endorsed by those that don't understand the science. At times, for viviparitous animals, information can be transmitted vertically, information that has nothing to do with changes in DNA, and can linger for one or a few generations before cells "reset" themselves. Why this happens can be easily explained through chemistry. That's about the extent of new-age epigenetics. Sadly, too many have embraced such mechanisms as yet another foolish competitor to Darwin's original algorithm.

The germ line is sequestered. For any form of Lamarkism to be true, there would have to be some inherent property of a molecule that can assess the value of a resource, which is absurd on so many levels. Blind trial and error is enough to resolve all of the variance in biodiversity.
edit on 24-8-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 

The theory would still explain the data in the OP is what I said. You might wish I was wrong - but I am not. Simple as that.

I am not trying to say anything else. It is amazing how touchy people are about their religions.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

I asked, because you claimed to be an expert (a claim one often runs across in the Internet), and I wanted to see if that's really the case. Since you failed to answer, it sure looks like you were lying..

p.s. the find supports the theory of evolution over instant creation of everything living since there weren't any giraffe bones on the beach (as predicted by the theory).
edit on 25-8-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

I never said anything about instant creation. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

I think you need to take a look back at the posts and have a think. Why are you trying to have an argument with an imaginary creationist? I think it's time for me to depart from this troll thread.

All the best

Pimander



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 
He's basically pointing out your suggestion that finding evidence of primitive micro-orgranisms dated to 3.4 billion years ago does not support evolution is a miscalculation, for the only other alternative is evidence that supports creationism (A giraffe dated to 3.4 billion years).



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join