Life's a beach...
...and then you surf...

Akushla

it's cool bro, I'm an expert in dinosaur rodeo. I don't have to probe it, of course, I'm just so badass with my triceratops-roping skills that I don't have to answer to you.

Thaaaaat said... he's technically correct that this single find, taken on its own, really isn't proof of anything beyyond the fact that these organisms died some 3.4 billion years ago. for all we know htye could be a biological dead end.

Luckily, fossils are just icing on the cake of evolutionary theory. So hey, whatever.

If we see fully formed organisms today that are the exact same as organisms, said to be the earliest ancestors of life, then what evidence are you using to show evolution in this thread? You seen the words 3 billion years and said, " Aha, here is the proof that will validate to other people why I believe my worldview.". Well, this isn't proof. This is just another thread for you and the same old posters to come into and try to hold each others worldview up. If this is your proof, then I'll pass. I'm not that gullible.

Originally posted by addygrace

Well considering these lifeforms are still on earth today, it's safe to say this discovery does nothing for the theory of evolution. They obviously didn't evolve.

Did you blindly say that cause you thought it to be true, or where you mislead somewhere? We can't deduce from fossils how different these primitive bacteria where from the modern bacteria we see now, and it doesn't say anywhere that they're the same.

Originally posted by addygrace
If we see fully formed organisms today that are the exact same as organisms, said to be the earliest ancestors of life, then what evidence are you using to show evolution in this thread? You seen the words 3 billion years and said, " Aha, here is the proof that will validate to other people why I believe my worldview.". Well, this isn't proof. This is just another thread for you and the same old posters to come into and try to hold each others worldview up. If this is your proof, then I'll pass. I'm not that gullible.

No, I think you're intentionally overlooking the implications of this. This discovery adds additional proof to the understanding that life on earth started simple, and somehow over time *hence evolution* became the complex forms we've seen today.

Not all creatures evolve drastically over long periods of time. Bacteria still exist, because they work and survive. They still have evolved though, they're not 'the exact same', they're just still bacteria.

How many theories besides evolution, also agree with the findings that simple life came first, and complexity gradually popped up? None that I can think of. It's absolutely absurd to think that a deity would create like that.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

---

How many theories besides evolution, also agree with the findings that simple life came first, and complexity gradually popped up? None that I can think of. It's absolutely absurd to think that a deity would create like that.

Why is it absurd for a deity to create bacteria, that is being purported to be the first life forms? I don't see the connection you're making.

There is nothing gradual to the fossil record. They actually say there was an explosion, in the cambrian period. Where most of the animals we see today, suddenly appeared.

By the way the article states itself, the bacteria they found is still around today.

The main problen I have with your claim is; Finding fossils of bacteria, that's still around today, somehow negates a deity. I knew that's what your slant was from the beginning. If your atheist, that's ok. But please stop pretending something found in rocks shows the absurdity of God.