Fossil evidence in WA suggests microbial life evolved in ponds on land

Guy's Guy's GUY'S!

Whoah! Let's all calm down and have a nice cup of chill tea huh?

Now, let's start this "discussion" off again with some evidence.

Oh....Did I just say evidence?....ahem ........anyway, let's all start again.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
Guy's Guy's GUY'S!

Whoah! Let's all calm down and have a nice cup of chill tea huh?

Now, let's start this "discussion" off again with some evidence.

Oh....Did I just say evidence?....ahem ........anyway, let's all start again.

You need to stop using so many apostrophes.

So, evolution, right? The brain, too, right? It evolves over time, right? Does the evolution involved leave behind patterns that could be mistaken for design? Doesn't evolution design things and in doing so, does it leave patterns?

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter please tell me you at least question the sanity of a
A HALF A BILLION YEAR evidence for anything?
If an education just puts crap like this in your head that's
just outrageous as a six thousand year old earth? What the hell good
is it? I see em both as equally completely unbelieveable.

Stupid on both counts

a reply to: CaptainBeno

The number of times this topic has been covered with EVIDENCE would be enough for a bunch of zoo monkeys to understand.
Some of the posters are merely clones or resurrected Creationists under a new name.

Same troll. Same argument. No evidence.

And you'll notice that they rarely answer a question. They simply make statements which come out of the far side of you-know-what.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The number of times this topic has been covered with EVIDENCE would be enough for a bunch of zoo monkeys to understand.

And there we have another example of what I was talking about in my 2nd comment in this thread (which my first reply also is connected to, as in yet another example of the behaviour and way of arguing described below).

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

The reverse appeal is in there as well again. So instead of spelling out "stupid" we've had "' insane' ("insanity"), supposedly someone not believing in "literally every single scientific discipline studied on earth" and "zoo monkeys". Nice picture painting going on here as usual. And then someone who silently agrees with this way of arguing and picture painting on those who won't agree with them or philosophical naturalism+evolutionary philosophies, even goes as far as to complain that it's the 'nay-sayers' that won't address the article in the OP, or the topic of the OP (the latter implied). Nice psychological projection to boot. I'm still the only one who has actually quoted someting from the article and then gave some commentary about it (allthough I was short and succinct about it, i.e. I didn't say much about it, still better than nothing at all and making comments to paint pictures on other people commenting here or even those not commenting).

If you don't know what to discuss regarding the article linked by Peter Vlar on the first page, try discussing whether or not the "re-interpretation" I pointed out is justified or not, or whether you can find and explain their justification for it in their article in your own words. A re-interpretation of that sort does imply that the earlier interpretation that was agreed upon by those working in this field (geology) was wrong/incorrect/false. All of them were wrong about interpreting these rock formations and layers as "seafloor mounds". So what did these people all do wrong and how did that interpretation pass the peer review process? How do we know the same mistakes won't be made again if that interpretation truly is the wrong one? How sure/certain can we be about the new re-interpretation? Is it conclusive/correct, without error/factual/true what they're saying about it? Someone once wrote:

"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine."

Isaac Newton phrased the thought this way (with a bit more elaboration about methodology on how to do that):

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
...
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.

Still, none of that is related to the phrase in the OP though: "...life evolved in ponds on land" which was discussed by Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz when he stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

a reply to: whereislogic

meh...6000 YEC's are bad enough...but when a JW cultist enters the room....it only goes downhill from there

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You can't really blame him/her though. They have to keep up their hours of spreading their cult propaganda (yeah, they have to spend a certain amount of hours every day/week spreading their jw cult "word").

But have you noticed that the ones who are against evolution, archeology, science and whatever else, never actually address the evidence? It's just blind dismissal. I bet most of them wouldn't even know how to take their own temperatures lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes I have noticed that with JWs...I used to have fun with them at the door because I knew my bible back then, now they can't knock on my door.

a reply to: whereislogic

Look, I'm sorry I insulted zoo monkeys. They're actually pretty smart. At least they accept reality for what it is
and don't try to reinvent the wheel (or the banana).

You, on the other hand, ignore the evidence and march on as though it doesn't exist. Peter posted a very interesting paper - did you read it? Are there any flaws in the paper? You never answer a question which says you don't have an answer.
It's really quite simple, actually.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Okay, so it may push back the development of life on land by a bit, but that doesn't change the fact that life started in the oceans before that.

This is definitely a cool discovery, but it sounds like some of the implications are wrong. (IE, pushing back the date of the earliest known life). Unless they are suggesting this life went through its own abiogenesis to develop? I wish I had some more time today to look into this. It seems really friggin cool.

a reply to: randyvs

Randy, as always, I am more than happy to agree to disagree with you and have a rational discussion on the evidence at hand. However, much like Whereislogic, you didn't actually address what you believed the errors to be in the evidence. You simply dismissed it as insane with no discussion, no mention of evidence or the science let alone the actual paper I went so far as to link so that anyone who wanted to read it and discuss the science or what they believe the errors in the paper are.

Please read through the paper and let me know where you believe the errors lie and why the papers conclusions are incorrect. I'm happy to pop in and have a proper discussion Sunday when I return home from Tulum because I have serious doubts that I'm going to have much internet access the next few days.

Just a quick blurb to address your statements before I leave port, education didn't put anything in my head. What it did was give me the tools to analyze the data presented in the paper. I have read papers where the conclusions simply were not supported by the data sets provided by the authors and I have written the authors and pointed out what I felt their errors were. I don't believe something just because it's been published in a peer reviewed journal. I look at the data and try to determine if it actually has any corollaries between that data and the authors conclusions.


Blindly accepting what a 3rd party tells me I should think, well...that's the domain of posters like Whereislogic who only believes what is printed in JW propaganda rags like 'Awake".

But please feel free to read through the paper I linked for the OP and discuss what the errors are. Boldly dismissing it without reading any of it and then saying I'm insane for supporting a hypothesis which you don't actually understand is personally insulting. That would be like me telling you about all the contradictions in the various versions of the Christian Bible but admitting I've never read any of it or having taken a catechism course just because I read it somewhere on the internet

a reply to: peter vlar

I would never say you're insane PV. Not in half billion years at least.

a reply to: peter vlar

I have a question about something mentioned in the paper:

(Discussion, paragraph 3)

Importantly, all recognized Dresser hot spring facies contain, or are spatially associated with, a suite of newly identified inferred biosignatures, including iron-rich domical and conical stromatolites, microbial palisade fabric within sinter terracettes and silicified bubbles in microbial EPS on sinter apron deposits. These observations suggest that early life in the Dresser Formation thrived off the chemical energy in hot springs.

The researchers suggest that microbial life thrived off chemical energy. I thought that cyanobacteria were the primary microorganism in stromatolites. Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic so one would expect the stromatolites to develop in layers with cyanobacteria interspersed but primarily living on the surface for exposure to light. The chemosynthetic bacteria would live nearer to sulfur and other inorganic molecules probably deeper within the hydrothermal vents.

Also, cyanobacteria produce oxygen. I wonder if oxygen is actually trapped in those bubbles.

a reply to: randyvs

So no, you're not interested in the science then?

a reply to: Phantom423

That's actually a really good question and deserves an answer requiring more time than I've got internet access today. I'll be gone Saturday night/early Sunday and will gladly tackle this query.

a reply to: peter vlar

No problem - thanks.

originally posted by: firefromabove
Assuming that life "evolved", fossil evidence in WA suggests microbial life evolved in ponds on land.

Its not an objective fact.

First of all, the current theory of evolution does not speak to how life actually began in the first place.

That is, first life began, and THEN that life evolved. There is no evolution of life without first having life, and the theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of that first life.