Life on Earth likely started 4.1 billion years ago (shortened title)

Science Daily ^ | 10/19/2015 | UCLA Staff

[JimSEA]

UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago -- 300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. The discovery indicates that life may have begun shortly after the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago.

The graphite is older than the zircon containing it, the researchers said. They know the zircon is 4.1 billion years old, based on its ratio of uranium to lead; they don't know how much older the graphite is.The carbon contained in the zircon has a characteristic signature -- a specific ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 -- that indicates the presence of photosynthetic life.

[panzerkamphwageneinz]

No actually it is spot on evolutionary theory. If you were intelectually honest then you have to take into account that evolution needs something it can’t explain in every step of the evolutionary prodess: CODING.

You, and no other evolutionary theorist can possibly begin to explain how DNA knows how to repair itself. You dodge the question. You add zeroes and say idiotic statements like “GIVEN ENOUGH TIME...”

You want to talk about dishonest? Answer these questions:

1) How did everything came from nothing?
2) How do cells know how to replicate?
3) How was the first protein formed?
4) Why do evolutionists disregard the over 40,000 fossils which point to the Noachic flood and instead try to fit the fossils into their theory?
5) How can red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils which were found to be preserved be more than a few thousand years old?

I could fill pages with the lies of evolution and the downright thugocracy that exists in the halls of science at every major university in the world. It is daring indeed to call me dishonest when the cabal of evolutionists seek to deny all reason, eliminate all debate and call science SETTLED.

Thank you for your congratulations. I must have struck a nerve....But you can’t explain how that nerve came to be can you?

[panzerkamphwageneinz]

No actually it is spot on evolutionary theory. If you were intelectually honest then you have to take into account that evolution needs something it can’t explain in every step of the evolutionary prodess: CODING.

You, and no other evolutionary theorist can possibly begin to explain how DNA knows how to repair itself. You dodge the question. You add zeroes and say idiotic statements like “GIVEN ENOUGH TIME...”

You want to talk about dishonest? Answer these questions:

1) How did everything came from nothing?
2) How do cells know how to replicate?
3) How was the first protein formed?
4) Why do evolutionists disregard the over 40,000 fossils which point to the Noachic flood and instead try to fit the fossils into their theory?
5) How can red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils which were found to be preserved be more than a few thousand years old?

I could fill pages with the lies of evolution and the downright thugocracy that exists in the halls of science at every major university in the world. It is daring indeed to call me dishonest when the cabal of evolutionists seek to deny all reason, eliminate all debate and call science SETTLED.

Thank you for your congratulations. I must have struck a nerve....But you can’t explain how that nerve came to be can you?

[panzerkamphwageneinz]

No actually it is spot on evolutionary theory. If you were intelectually honest then you have to take into account that evolution needs something it can’t explain in every step of the evolutionary prodess: CODING.

You, and no other evolutionary theorist can possibly begin to explain how DNA knows how to repair itself. You dodge the question. You add zeroes and say idiotic statements like “GIVEN ENOUGH TIME...”

You want to talk about dishonest? Answer these questions:

1) How did everything came from nothing?
2) How do cells know how to replicate?
3) How was the first protein formed?
4) Why do evolutionists disregard the over 40,000 fossils which point to the Noachic flood and instead try to fit the fossils into their theory?
5) How can red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils which were found to be preserved be more than a few thousand years old?

I could fill pages with the lies of evolution and the downright thugocracy that exists in the halls of science at every major university in the world. It is daring indeed to call me dishonest when the cabal of evolutionists seek to deny all reason, eliminate all debate and call science SETTLED.

Thank you for your congratulations. I must have struck a nerve....But you can’t explain how that nerve came to be can you?

[Moonman62]

OK, good, should now be easy enough to create life in a jar.

...

How do you figure that?

[DouglasKC]

Sounds like you need an Intelligent Chooser” and selector and picker and sorter to pick out each block (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...) in the right order though. Remember, evolution works. By trillions to the trillionth power of get-each-random-mutation-in-the-right-order-AND-get-each-random mutation-be-the-right “random” event. An “eye” has no survival benefits (and will burden its possessor!) UNTIL the optic nerve, the lens fluid, the brain, the brain connections and processes, the muscles, the lens muscles, the coordination between optic nerve-brain-muscle all “work”.

I did the math a while ago and came to the conclusion that mathematically the odds against life spontaneously starting on earth is zero. The odds against simple life evolving into more complex life is even higher.

But it's interesting how science tries to get around this cold hard fact. For example this article, a blog from nova, wonders why the universe seems specificially and uniquely fine tuned to support life. For example:

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.

Now the conclusion of many is this:

That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.
“The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.

In other words rather than believe the UNIVERSE was designed and created some scientists would rather make up an entire theory about a multiverse. If there's an infinite amount of universes then, hey, one of them must have formed exactly right to be able to support life. We got lucky.

I would much rather spend my time trying to discover the creator of the universe than poring over the creation looking for ways to ignore the obvious.

[DungeonMaster]

6000 years ago.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Is it “easier” (more logical) to believe that the Dark Matter and Dark Energy make up 85% of the universe and its mass - (because 7, 8, 10 and 16-level dimensionless mathematics “requires it” because the theorectical limits of “conventional science of cosmology”) .... With that Dark Matter and Dark Energy conveniently invisible, unmeasureable, and unproveable?

Or a single one True God?

[Hebrews 11:6]

dhs12345 wrote (post 10):

Makes you wonder how special and unique we truly are... all of the right conditions had to happen, millions of conditions, maybe billions of conditions with any one condition leading in the wrong direction would mean that we never came into existence. What are the probabilities? I'd suggest that they are astronomical.

dsrtsage wrote (post 13):

In order for you to continue breathing, billions of independent processes have to work exactly right, and these processes happen between organisms constantly every milisecond of every day that may or may not even share your DNA. Just try to explain how combinations of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and other atoms can come together and not only create consciousness but also to think.

Robert A. Cook, PE wrote (post 20):

Just remember, there are some 10^57 atoms (higher-weight nuclei) in just our solar system alone. And every one of them had to be created, transformed inside stars, and re-ejected multiple times in just the right sequence to get re-absorbed in the next star-supernova. Then travel drifting through space just in time to get trapped into out gravitation fields to become planets, continents, plants and rocks. .... But the miracle of creation is doubted by many.

You've each very eloquently made the vital point that an impossibly complex chain of circumstances must be intricately choreographed (please forgive if I've summarized your own statement sloppily in order to make one statement that applies to all). I write to refer you to a scholar's list that specifically details what you've expressed, so that you can see the actual conditions. The list is by Christian astronomer and apologist Dr. Hugh Ross and appears on his Reasons to Believe website (Reasons.org) in two versions, both with supporting citations to the scientific literature justifying each listed item.

The first list, Fine Tuning for Life on Earth, lists the 154 factors required for any life to exist only briefly on earth; advanced life persisting for a long time requires a greatly expanded list. Please note that this list is current only as of 2004; as a charity, Reasons to Believe does not possess the resources, especially of Dr. Ross' time, which he estimates would take at least six months of his undivided attention (at age 70), to update it again; he is far too busy writing books and speaking all over the world. He has updated the list several times and it always grows greatly as more scientific discoveries reveal new dependency factors.

The second list, Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body, computes the actual probabilities known as of 2004, yielding a conservative estimate:

"Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282 (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles." (emphasis added)

For perspective, please note there are only 10^78 atomic particles in the known universe. The probabilities are indeed astronomical, in fact more so, just as dhs12345 predicted.

---

Finally, as to the point of JimSEA's posted article. Earlier discoveries of life within ten million years of the cessation of the Late Heavy Bombardment (to which Jim referred in post 1), c. 3.85 billion years ago, had already decimated any possibility of life occurring naturally on earth, there being insufficient time (and also the wrong conditions). This latest discovery at 4.1 bya, if true, further devastates the position of those who rely on anything but a Purposeful, Benevolent, Intelligent Creator to explain earth's life.

[JimSEA]

Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations. Your questions cover far more ground than the theory of evolution.

Question #1 this is one for theoretical physiatrists. I have, however, heard that the universe came from a singularity and thus not from nothing.

Question #2 RNA, DNA and assorted proteins, etc. See: INTRODUCTION TO CELL REPRODUCTION

Question #3 The Origin of Life

Question #4 The underlying supposition is entirely false. In those instances where older fossil containing strata are found on top of younger faulting and bending are in evidence as well. Thrust faults at plate edges are particularly clear indications. Overall, there is no geological evidence for a great, worldwide flood.

Question #5 A Live Science article "Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained" covers this one.

I meant no disrespect for you as an excellent FReeper but I have no respect for the sources you seem to be getting your questions and information from. I believe they are making a lot of money out of distorting science and in some cases outright lies.

[21twelve]

Will read in detail later.

I wonder what the odds are now that they have discovered that the DNA strand has twice as much information in it than they thought? (Shadow or mirror DNA or something).

[Hebrews 11:6]

I wonder what the odds are now that they have discovered many, many more things, each of which increases the odds greatly. And they were already well beyond refutation of creation.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Overall, there is no geological evidence for a great, worldwide flood.

It may surprise you to learn that a global flood is a very common, widespread misunderstanding of the Bible. It was "worldwide" only in that it occurred throughout the existing "world" of men, who had restricted themselves to a small region of earth, in defiance of God's command to fill the earth. This limited understanding of "worldwide" has complete scriptural support in both Old and New Testaments.

[tacticalogic]

The first list, Fine Tuning for Life on Earth, lists the 154 factors required for any life to exist only briefly on earth;

Any form of life, or specifically life as we know it?

[Hebrews 11:6]

Any form of life, or specifically life as we know it?

Because you quoted me, I assume you intended your inquiry for me. The answer is "both," in that carbon-based life is all that is possible, and the list applies to that.

[tacticalogic]

carbon-based life is all that is possible,

Sounds like "settled science", aka dogma.

[samtheman]

UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago — 300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. The discovery indicates that life may have begun shortly after the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago.

---

One way of thinking about it is that 4.54 billion minus 4.1 billion equals .44 billion years.

440 million years isn’t “shortly after the planet formed”.

It’s a long, long, long, long time. A lot longer than Patrick can whistle.

[Hebrews 11:6]

“shortly after the planet formed”

.44/4.54 = .097. So, evidence of life at <10% of the earth's current age, i.e., "shortly after the planet formed."

[samtheman]

It’s 3% of the age of the universe. Still a long time.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Not for God.

[samtheman]

No, not for God.