Skip to comments.Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? (Temple of Darwin at it again...LOL!!!)
Posted on 10/22/2009 2:44:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
The picture painted by Russell and Martin is striking indeed. The last common ancestor of all life was not a free-living cell at all, but a porous rock riddled with bubbly iron-sulphur membranes that catalysed primordial biochemical reactions...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
I thought the Bible said that God made man out of mud.
Like I said, My cousin the rock!
I wonder how they explain the origin of intelligence? Or the concept of infinity?
Which does beg the question why some people believe in DNA, the Bible says nothing about DNA, it says MUD, not Deoxyribonucleic acid. Is this literal truth or what?
Gawrsh, mud ain’t rocks - DUH!
Actually, your point is a good one. But that would be saying the the Bible was using a metaphor. And the Bible, according to some believers, is literally true.
Obama is the “missing link”.
The atheist’s defense of his/her absurd theories is always: deep time. As in, given enough time, the world would evolve to what we see today. This is equivalent to an elaborate fairy tale that they wish to be true. Has order ever evolved from chaos? Can they explain how a functioning organism - not to mention civilizations - can form by virtue of just existing for billions of years? Their arguments are extremely weak, yet anyone who challenges them is considered to be a dufus. Go figure.
Funny, I don’t feel beat down in the slightest. In fact, today’s events have me feeling downright energized.
Where exactly is that “Temple of Darwin” located?
Certain posters never evolve beyond the “primordial ooze” stage.
s/b: a functioning oranism can exist by virtue of a predecessor having existed for billions of years.
His quantity instead of quality strategy requires it.
In your dark heart.
An he must be a real boon to the popcorn industry. Orville Redenbacher would be so proud.
Sounds like someone been looking under one too many rocks.
post hoc ergo proptor hoc.
Good one :o)
Can you believe they are funded with our tax dollars to come up with this crap!
God’s Holy Word is full of metaphore’s.
Science exists for a reason, and putting a name on something is not contradictory to faith.
“The atheists defense of his/her absurd theories is always: deep time. As in, given enough time, the world would evolve to what we see today. This is equivalent to an elaborate fairy tale that they wish to be true. Has order ever evolved from chaos? Can they explain how a functioning organism - not to mention civilizations - can form by virtue of just existing for billions of years? Their arguments are extremely weak, yet anyone who challenges them is considered to be a dufus. Go figure.”
Niche say’s out of chaos comes order. Oh blow it out your a#@ Howard.
“post hoc ergo proptor hoc”
OK - I know what the phrase means, but I’m not sure how you intend it to apply to me. I’m not suggesting that our existence here implies or proves design, but I’m saying that nothing about our existence here indicates otherwise. Attributing it all to “deep time” is begging the issue, IMO. In that case, we might as well claim that life started with visitors from outer space. You don’t agree?
Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
I prefer to think of the Genesis account of Creation as not so mush as a metaphor, but an artistic interpetation of what actually happened. Would it have made any sense for God to have inspired the author of Genesis to write: “Before the existence of space-time, God created a point of infinite singularity which then expanded to make the universe?” It would have been easier to make people believe that the Earth was on the back of a giant turte.
BTW I also like the theory that ethyl alcohol, which exists in space, came to Earth and formed the first organic compounds. Which would mean our earliest ancestor is booze.
Really? How much time are we talking about?
The Hadean Era was the first in Earth history, extending from the first formation of continental crust, which began some time around 4,200 Ma (Goodwin 1991, Condie 1997), becoming persistent soon after, to approximately 3,500 Ma.
This is something you should have learned in Jr. High Science class.
I hope you don’t think I’m just responding off the top of my head, because I find this subject very interesting and I like to hear the opinions of others. I have two questions for ou:
1. How does deep time address diversity?
2) Seems like deep time would dictate that everything evolves along the same time line. But in our world, every component is functional. Why aren’t there substances or organisms that haven’t fully evolved yet. or abnormalities that pop up here and there, as in the monkey typing Hamlet? The deep space theory would indicate that now and then a monkey would, in fact, type Hamlet, but that doesn’t happen. Why?
What has gone on that left you either “beat down” or “energized” - depending on who is talking?
Nice touch, attacking my intelligence. But I can google too. :)
“The Hadean Era was the first in Earth history, extending from the first formation of continental crust, which began some time around 4,200 Ma (Goodwin 1991, Condie 1997), becoming persistent soon after, to approximately 3,500 Ma.”
A certain someone likes to compare American Christians to bowel movements, the Taliban, etc. When I went after said person for that, they couldn’t hack it and had to call in the mods. Certain mods side with the anti-theists every time, and one of them told me to lay off said person. Said person for some reason thinks that this has got me all beat down and dejected. Said person is heavily influenced by wishful thinking.
“...our earliest ancestor is booze.” I’ll drink to that!
I am in agreement with your assessment, but that means that you are leaning towards the idea that the Bible is myth, not history. Karen Armstrong has a very cogent analysis of this position in her new book, “The Case for God.” Her poistion is similar to my belief - that God is ineffable, and that any attempt to explain Him or His state of being must always be metaphor and myth at the bottom. Myths convey Truths, but are not literal truths.
The idea that all life of this planet began as organic “rocks” is indeed beautifully described by the line that God made Man from mud. When I read all the beautiful concepts in the Bible, I am sorrowful for all those scriptures which have been lost forever in the wars,cultural turmoils, floods and insect infestations of the past 2500 to 300 years.
Given the rate of mutations, and the time involved it is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see today.
They evolutionary theory does not state everything evolve along the same timeline.
As far as organisms that have not fully evolved yet we see that with the continued evolution of anti-biotitic strains of bacteria.
There are some very good resources available if you are truly interested in learning more on this subject.
However the questions you are asking are things you should have learned in High school biology.
She sure is sturdy after all these years!
I wonder if the evos have the slightest inkling how howl-at-the-moon crazy they sound to all but themselves?
As do most democratic strategists and voters.
I highly doubt it!! =)
If you knew the answer, or were able to look it up then why did you ask the question?
“our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?”
That’s the one I crawled out from under!!
“However the questions you are asking are things you should have learned in High school biology.”
Do you really think that anyone who views evolution differently from you is stupid? High school biology - well, I think you’ll find a diversity of opinion among high school biology teachers. I really don’t think the case is closed on evoluation as presented any more than it’s closed on global warming per Al Gore.
In any case, evolution is not subject to the rigors of scientific inquiry - controlled experimentation - and I’m sure you know that. You cannot duplicate evolution as you believe it to be within the laboratory setting. Evolution is a theory that is subject to change. In fact, it changes constantly. Have you ever heard of Piltdown Man? The community that champions evolutionary theory can be wrong and has proved this to be the case. Why are evolutionists so defensive when their beliefs are questioned? It makes it seem as though the entire evolutionary belief system is more religious in nature than scientific. Can that be the case?
“However the questions you are asking are things you should have learned in High school biology.”
You are absolutely right about this. There’s been evolutionary activity within species as well. Is there documented verification of interspecies evolution anywhere?
Now, it looks like your argument is still “Give it enough time and anything can happen.” So - if you did see the monkey typing Hamlet, would you be surprised, or would you attribute that to the deep time, deep space, anything can happen philosophy? Isn’t that what we would call a miracle? But evolutionists don’t believe in miracles. Isn’t that one of the tenets of evolutionary thought?
That simply is not true. Natural selection can and has been demonstrated many times. Further, intentional changes to DNA sequences simulating natural genetic variation in rapidly breeding populations like fruit flies happen nearly every day. Modern cattle are an excellent example of manipulated evolution in which those traits most desired by farmers were allowed to live and reproduce and less desirable traits were weeded out. Lastly, seed optimization and plant hybridization is a thriving industry.
I might be wrong here - I’m not a scientist - but I believe that “natural selection” and “interspecies evolution” are not synonomous. I understand that natural selection has been proved many times over in intraspecies breeing. However, I don’t think there’s been any documented evidence of interspecies evolution. Perhaps the aviatrix (?!) thing but I haven’t seen that in documentation recently.
Given the vast time frame needed for life to form or species to evolve, how could lab experiments ever simulate the actual events?
Yes Piltdown man was a hoax that was exposed by the scientific community 56 years ago. Science relies on empirical evidence that can be falsified, as opposed to religion, which takes into account the supernatural and is based on faith.
Here is a link for a testable experiment regarding interspecies evolution.
“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact” ~ Richard Dawkins
Well, Piltdown man was hailed by the evolutionary community for 46 years before it was proved to be a hoax. My point is that the evolutionary community can be, and often is, wrong.
I don’t think it’s a matter of religion vs. science - this is a false premise. What is true is true - if any religion embraces something proved to be untrue, it should disavow that embrace. “Religion” isn’t based on or exclusive of scientific thought or experimentation. But it doesn’t fly in the face of it either. There aren’t two separate spheres of reality - one for science and one for religion - but they may represent two different ways of looking at reality.
In any case, note what you said about religion being based on faith. Can’t that be said of you, as an evolutionist? You’re accepting on faith the idea that over time the impossible has become possible, without concrete evidence to show that this is so. Does this not involve the supernatural every bit as much as any religion incorporates the idea of God?
Thanks for the link. I will look at it. And I’ll report back.
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact ~ Richard Dawkins
As for the Dawkins quote, really...he’s an evolutionist. Of course he’s going to cheerlead for his own side. :)
But evolution is NOT a fact. It doesn’t meet the standards of “fact.” It’s a theory. :)