No time for Evolution?

cnsnews.com...


This article basically says that the timeline for life on Earth just got pushed back even earlier then goes onto say this makes evolution harder to explain? Can someone please explain how? I mean if life has been around even longer now wouldn't that help evolution as there has been more not less time for things to have evolved?

This is an easy one.
The story is from a religious/conservative website.

God did it.
Ignore all evidence of evolution.
Nothing to see here.

a reply to: norhoc

The article is funny.

The title is "Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend", but all he talks about is Darwinian evolution (the explanation of evolution has updated way beyond what Darwin original thought 150+ years ago) and the origins of life as if they're one and the same. They're not.

Evolution is what happened AFTER life occurred, not HOW life occurred.

Typical religious argument of ignorance/denial.

What the posters above me said. ^

Those suggested articles on ISIS though...

Give me the ignorant anti-evolution arguments over that type of religious crap any day.

a reply to: norhoc

Evolution as a idea is righteous, evolution from nothing is heresy.

a reply to: norhoc

This article is flawed from the start, that wouldn't be a huge find.

originally posted by: norhoc
cnsnews.com...


This article basically says that the timeline for life on Earth just got pushed back even earlier then goes onto say this makes evolution harder to explain? Can someone please explain how? I mean if life has been around even longer now wouldn't that help evolution as there has been more not less time for things to have evolved?

When an article about a scientific find doesn't actually discuss the science until the fourth paragraph, it's a pretty good sign that the entire article is a steaming pile of poo. Then factor in that an article that purports to be about evolution and only refers to proponents of evolutionary theory as "Darwinists" then you've pretty much sealed the deal regarding the lack of actual scientific knowledge on the part of the articles author because "Darwinism" hasn't actually been the main component of evolutionary theory since the advent of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which combined Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian genetics nearly 70 years ago. So the aythor is either willfully ignorant or purposely misleading his intended readers. And none of that even touches on the simple fact that the author doesn't actually offer up anything resembling a hypothesis. The entire position hinges on nothing more than incredulousness and mockery of scientific disciplines far beyond their ability to understand.

A new fossil discovery makes it even tougher for Darwinists to explain the origin of life.

The very first line of the article. Clearly whoever wrote it is a moron. How many times do we have to say that Evolution is NOT the origin of life. Unbelievable that they start the article with a blatant strawman and use the outdated term "Darwinists". Yeah, I'm not reading the rest of that pile of garbage. I already know where it's heading. Lies and libel. No surprise it's an extreme conservative website.

a reply to: norhoc

The overwhelming academic ignorance and incompetence in this article aptly sums up the creationist position on the matter.

Thanks for the own goal, OP.

a reply to: norhoc

It's funny debating people who try to use evolution to refute Intelligent Design or to support their Atheism. Evolution does neither of these things. It's also funny seeing them go crazy when someone mentions how evolution as a byproduct of naturalism can't or didn't occur. I was just reading this article:

Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend

A new fossil discovery makes it even tougher for Darwinists to explain the origin of life.

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.

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 … .”

cnsnews.com...

I then went to the comments section and the Darwinist were going NUTS! Any question about Evolution and the Origin of Life garners the same blind outrage from Darwinist. They scream:

EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!

This statement makes no sense. Evolution had to have it's origin in life. Everything has it's origin. Evolution didn't magically just pop out of nowhere. It needed life in order to evolve, therefore the origin of life is paramount to evolution.

When it comes to life on this planets the origins tell you how life can evolve and these origins are telling us that this couldn't have occured naturally.

To me, we don't see randomness because at the heart of randomness is an underlying mechanism of fined tuned rules and design.

If you have an infinite set of Poker Games you will get random varions of Poker games and each game can be different. What you will not get is Poker evolving into Go Fish games or Gin Rummy games. This is because the origin of Poker was designed by intelligence and you can get random variations but they can only occur within these set of initial rules.

We see this with the fine tuning of the universe and the genetic code.Life evolved but it did so within a specific set of laws and rules put in place by intelligence.

a reply to: neoholographic

Your ignorance of the differences between evolution and abiogenesis is astounding.

a reply to: neoholographic

Origins of life = How life came to exist

Evolution = How existing life changed over time

2 different things, no matter how much you protest.

a reply to: neoholographic

That article doesn't present anything new... we have known about fossils that old for a while.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Origins of life = How life came to exist

Evolution = How existing life changed over time

2 different things, no matter how much you protest.

This statement makes no sense!

HOW CAN YOU KNOW HOW LIFE CHANGED OVERTIME WITHOUT KNOWING THE ORIGIN OF THE LIFE THAT'S CHANGING?

Evolution isn't happening in some blind vacuum of Darwinists beliefs, it's happening to life and the origin of life dictates what life can evolve just like the origin of Poker dictates the random variations of Poker games that can be played.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

Origins of life = How life came to exist

Evolution = How existing life changed over time

2 different things, no matter how much you protest.

This statement makes no sense!

Only because you don't understand it.

HOW CAN YOU KNOW HOW LIFE CHANGED OVERTIME WITHOUT KNOWING THE ORIGIN OF THE LIFE THAT'S CHANGING?

The only connecting thing that origins and evolution have in common is that there must be life to have evolution. That's it.

Evolution isn't happening in some blind vacuum of Darwinists beliefs, it's happening to life and the origin of life dictates what life can evolve just like the origin of Poker dictates the random variations of Poker games that can be played.

And here we are again, using a term to describe people who understand evolution that is completely incorrect.

Origins of life = How life started

Evolution = How life changed

Try learning the difference between the 2, it will make you look less ignorant.

originally posted by: Barcs

A new fossil discovery makes it even tougher for Darwinists to explain the origin of life.

The very first line of the article. Clearly whoever wrote it is a moron. How many times do we have to say that Evolution is NOT the origin of life. Unbelievable that they start the article with a blatant strawman and use the outdated term "Darwinists". Yeah, I'm not reading the rest of that pile of garbage. I already know where it's heading. Lies and libel. No surprise it's an extreme conservative website.

The hilarious problem with evolution not including the ORIGIN is that you will eventually HAVE to look for the origin or you will have nothing but theories forever on evolution.

For me, evolution is an extremely boring and useless venture, it tells us nothing in the end of any value, and certainly has a very limited scope.

a reply to: TerryDon79

The fact you and others actually believe the 2 can be separated is quite a leap.

Good luck with that.

a reply to: TerryDon79

LOOK WHAT YOU SAID LOL!

The only connecting thing that origins and evolution have in common is that there must be life to have evolution. That's it.

THAT'S IT!!! That's everything.

You said, there MUST be life to have evolution. So according to you, the origin of life is even more important than how it evolved because you MUST have life first.

a reply to: ParasuvO

The 2 aren't separated. Evolution needs to life exist for it to be able to evolve. No life, no evolution.

The difference is, there's multiple theories and hypothese life could have come to be. Evolution only explains what happens AFTER life is already here.

It's not difficult to understand.

Take oil. Do we need to understand how oil was made to understand what oil is and how it works in cars?

a reply to: ParasuvO

Why?

Evolution has never been presented as explaining the origin of life, just about what happens after.
It is fundamental misunderstandings like that that make these conversations impossible.