religion

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, 1981, p. 8. Letting the Fossil Record Speak, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?

"Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning."

Yes they do. You are conflating abiogenesis with evolution. What you want is the precursor to cells and cell colonies which you will probably never find (in the fossil record). Such material doesnt fossilize well. Granted it is a hole in our knowledge but we know that certain strands of molecules can reproduce and from there it isnt impossible to arrive at cellular life.

Maybe a divine being placed the first cells, maybe an alien seeded the planet, maybe a comet from mars carried the life, maybe they evolved from much simpler chains of protein. Who knows? You dont and neither do I. That's why we investigate and experiment.

What we can clearly demonstrate is that life in the fossil record shows simple life was on the planet 3.5 billion years ago. We dont ever find a rabbit or fish fossil lodged in geologic layers from that time. We only find the simplest organisms. As time progress the geological record shows that organisms became more and more complex. First there are colonies of cells, then there are simple organisms, then there are complex organisms.

If all life arose on the planet at the same time then we would find rabbits, proto-fish, dinosaurs, wolves, apes, etc. all sandwiched in the same geological layers together.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning."

Yes they do. You are conflating abiogenesis with evolution. What you want is the precursor to cells and cell colonies which you will probably never find (in the fossil record). Such material doesnt fossilize well. Granted it is a hole in our knowledge but we know that certain strands of molecules can reproduce and from there it isnt impossible to arrive at cellular life.

Maybe a divine being placed the first cells, maybe an alien seeded the planet, maybe a comet from mars carried the life, maybe they evolved from much simpler chains of protein. Who knows? You dont and neither do I. That's why we investigate and experiment.

What we can clearly demonstrate is that life in the fossil record shows simple life was on the planet 3.5 billion years ago. We dont ever find a rabbit or fish fossil lodged in geologic layers from that time. We only find the simplest organisms. As time progress the geological record shows that organisms became more and more complex. First there are colonies of cells, then there are simple organisms, then there are complex organisms.

If all life arose on the planet at the same time then we would find rabbits, proto-fish, dinosaurs, wolves, apes, etc. all sandwiched in the same geological layers together.

"“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

Henry Gee supports the theory of evolution.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So the hypothesis just failed the test of science.

No, what you fail to understand is life forms go extinct or they continue to evolve and eventually become a new species. There is no stop button on evolution. The first colonies I described have long since died out or they have evolved on to something else. Finding them in the world today would go against the theory of evolution because that means they DIDNT evolve. No organism on earth can avoid the random mutation of genes.

Populations can stay relatively the same for long periods of time but there is always genetic drift. It's environment will eventually change and that species will begin to have selective pressures placed upon it again.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

Henry Gee supports the theory of evolution.

Not sure if you know this or not but scientists can be wrong.

[Glenzig]

"The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms."--Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 249.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, what you fail to understand is life forms go extinct or they continue to evolve and eventually become a new species. There is no stop button on evolution. The first colonies I described have long since died out or they have evolved on to something else. Finding them in the world today would go against the theory of evolution because that means they DIDNT evolve. No organism on earth can avoid the random mutation of genes.

Populations can stay relatively the same for long periods of time but there is always genetic drift. It's environment will eventually change and that species will begin to have selective pressures placed upon it again.

But what I said was find the cells that exhibit the same characteristics, use them in a lab experiment to prove your hypothesis. Not the SAME cells.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms."--Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 249.

May I present to you...fossilized bacteria:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

Just one of the many examples of fossils we have that are single celled organisms...not multi-celled. Try again.

[Glenzig]

Sometime in the first billion years, life appeared on the earth’s surface. Slowly, the fossil record indicates, living organisms climbed the ladder from simple to more advanced forms. ◾Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, 1979, p. 97.

◾The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history. ◾Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, 1979, p. 97. Letting the Fossil Record Speak, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?

Seems very contradictory.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But what I said was find the cells that exhibit the same characteristics, use them in a lab experiment to prove your hypothesis. Not the SAME cells.

First, you have know the exact mutations that took place and at what stages. You would also need to know the exact environment that gave rise to and selected for these traits. We have incomplete data on both so it isnt as easy as stepping in a lab with a a handful of cells.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

May I present to you...fossilized bacteria:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

Just one of the many examples of fossils we have that are single celled organisms...not multi-celled. Try again.

I think you misunderstood the quote.