Complex Life May Have Started on Earth Much Earlier Than We Thought

a reply to: pfishy

This thread:

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: cooperton

No, that's a ridiculous statement. Firstly, since Uranium, in all of it's isotopes, is radioactive, you can NEVER find a sample that is absolutely pure Uranium.

Exactly. So why would they assume it happens ever? We've observed freshly dried Lava and the Uranium dating says it's 350,000-2,400,000 years old. It is clearly an uncalibrated "science"

Spam

You aren't wrong a reply to: Ohanka

originally posted by: pfishy
You aren't wrong a reply to: Ohanka

He's right but not in the way you guys hope. The old dogmatic notions of evolutionary theory are beginning to be exposed as impossible in light of the complexity of biology from the macroscopic down to the nanoscopic level. Darwin supposed his theory would be proven wrong if organs were shown to be interdependent (because this would disprove the possibility of piece-by-piece mutations)... not only are organs interdependent, but so are tissues, cells, organelles, proteins, and even the molecules within our body. Piece-by-piece random mutations can not create a human being, or even a basic eukaryote for that matter.

So burn me at the stake for my heresy against scientism.

Also waiting on your explanation for fresh Lava dating as old as 2.4 million years old.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution is a demonstrable, scientific fact. We’ve seen it happen with our own eyes with mayflies and other short-lived species.

Darwin lived a long time ago and we understand a lot more about evolution today than he could have ever dreamed.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: cooperton

Evolution is a demonstrable, scientific fact. We’ve seen it happen with our own eyes with mayflies and other short-lived species.

I guarantee the mayflies were still mayflies, and the short-lived species still remained the same kind of organism. A population of organisms has never been shown to be able to become something distinctly new. an E. Coli strain was artificially selected for 73,000 generations and we did not observe it become anything besides E. Coli.

There's no demonstrable science that shows evolution is possible. Adaptation occurs, but organisms and populations cannot adapt beyond what they are. That's what the science shows.

a reply to: cooperton

Adaptation is Evolution. Evolution is where a thing changes to better suit its environment.

The only difference between so-called micro-evolution and macro-evolution is timescale. Life evolved over billions of years.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: cooperton

Adaptation is Evolution. Evolution is where a thing changes to better suit its environment.

The only difference between so-called micro-evolution and macro-evolution is timescale. Life evolved over billions of years.

No we've seen organisms and populations adapt, but we've never seen them evolve into something distinctly new. It's faith not science

a reply to: cooperton

Well clearly because no one has lived the millions of years required to witness such drastic changes. It took about 20 million years for the Eohippus to become the Mesohippus, about 20 million years for that to become the Hipparion, and then about 20 million more for the Hipparion to become the Horse. About 60 million years in total there.

We've got a lot of fossils that are pretty old that are the ancestors of stuff that wanders around today but who are noticeably absent from the modern world (no Eohippus's around after all), and vestigial structures within many lifeforms (including humans) that are holdovers from some previous evolutionary step.

It is isn't faith. It is a fact that life as we know it today came about thanks to evolution.

I think it's pretty cool personally.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: cooperton

Well clearly because no one has lived the millions of years required to witness such drastic changes. It took about 20 million years for the Eohippus to become the Mesohippus, about 20 million years for that to become the Hipparion, and then about 20 million more for the Hipparion to become the Horse. About 60 million years in total there.

They've artificially selected 73,000 generations of E. Coli in a lab and it still remained E. Coli. To put that in perspective, given a 20 year generational span, that would be equivalent to 1.5 million years of human evolution. If E. Coli can't become something else in 73,000 generations, then why would a chimpanzee ?

We've got a lot of fossils that are pretty old that are the ancestors of stuff that wanders around today but who are noticeably absent from the modern world (no Eohippus's around after all), and vestigial structures within many lifeforms (including humans) that are holdovers from some previous evolutionary step.

Soft tissue is found consistently in dinosaur bones and it's carbon dated to less than 40,000 years old. Easy, straight-forward evidence that shows the evolutionary timeline is not plausible

It is isn't faith. It is a fact that life as we know it today came about thanks to evolution.

Show a repeatable experiment that proves it

I think it's pretty cool personally.

It captivated me for a while but it gets in the way of reality... if we believe we are mutant apes we begin to limit our frame of thought to that precedent. What's cooler is being the progeny of an extra-dimensional hyper consciousness that willed us into existence.

Quite simply, the uranium and subsequent decay lead were that old in the mantle plume that started the lava flow. But there are no fossils in lava. The rock in question is sedimentary.
a reply to: Ohanka