Researchers suggest: Life began on land not sea. And nearly 600 mya earlier than thought

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 20, 2017

Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Stromatolites are round, multilayered mineral structures that range from the size of golf balls to weather balloons and represent the oldest evidence that there were living organisms on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Scientists who believed life began in the ocean thought these mineral formations had formed in shallow, salty seawater, just like living stromatolites in the World Heritage-listed area of Shark Bay, which is a two-day drive from the Pilbara.

But what Djokic discovered amid the strangling heat and blood-red rocks of the region was evidence that the stromatolites had not formed in salt water but instead in conditions more like the hot springs of Yellowstone.

The discovery pushed back the time for the emergence of microbial life on land by 580 million years and also bolstered a paradigm-shifting hypothesis laid out by UC Santa Cruz astrobiologists David Deamer and Bruce Damer: that life began, not in the sea, but on land. – University of California – Santa Cruz. More.

This riffs off the deep sea hydrothermal vents hypothesis.

Also, from UCSC Santa Cruz A paradigm-shifting hypothesis laid out by UC Santa Cruz astrobiologists
David Deamer and Bruce Damer could reshape our idea about the origin of life.”

Really? Their waiting-in-line number is in the low 300s. But we’ll see.

Oldest known multicellulars are Ediacaran seaweed 555 mya

See also: Moshe Averick on origin of life as bringing out the illogic of naturalist atheists

Origin of life: Could it all have come together in one very special place?

and

Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick?

Comments

rvB8:
It is scientific naturalism which has all the evidence to date...
That is simply untrue. Naturalism can't even get started- how can natural processes be accountable for the origin of nature when they only exist in nature? There isn't any evidence for naturalism in the origin of life. There isn't any evidence for naturalism in the laws of physics. Methinks you don't know what science entails...ET_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

The Creationist Law of Abiogenesis: "Absent Divine Intervention, only life begets life" This is a Scientific law, because it is 1) a statement describing an observed regularity, 2) falsifiable, 3) but has never been falsified, and 4) has been confirmed by a wide body of empirical evidence.” Regarding points 2,3, and 4.... 2) The Creationist Law could be falsified, if the Law were false, by demonstrating life arising from inanimate chemicals. 3) Life has never arisen from inanimate chemicals, thus the Creationist Law has never been falsified. 4) Throughout history, such spontaneous generation has never been credibly demonstrated. Moreover, a huge international research effort, led by four generations of Top Scientists (including Nobel Prize Winners) attempted to make life in Research Laboratories. It has resulted in complete failure. As was the case with other Scientific Laws such as the Conservation of Energy, the failure of a major effort to falsify a Law, such as the Creationist Law, is compelling confirmation of the Law. Finally, I regret you thought I was patronizing you. I wasn't. Instead I was calling your bluff, by demanding that you back up your claims. It is my contention that any claim that life can originate without Divine Intervention is unsupported by empirical evidence. You disagree, and claim to have evidence. But you dont say what your empirical evidence is. So once again, please tell us what evidence you got.chris haynes_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

CH @9, this 'Creationist Law',(Heh) is actually what is known as a perfect oxyomron. You say scientific law must be 'falsifiable'? How the hell is the supernatural, 'falsifiable'? We may not know the full story of naturalisim's route to life, but we know there is one, or more probably, thousands. Please don't patronise me. It is scientific naturalism which has all the evidence to date, it is creationism, which is untestable, and has zero evidence, notwithstanding a Book.rvb8_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

The deep sea hydrothermal vents has been replaced by the cooler alkaline vents as the possible birth place of life- See Nick Lane's "Life Ascending" for all the details. It appears the alkaline vents have everything needed to produce the building blocks and provides the energy too.ET_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

rvB8:
This is because ever since ID raised its head in the mid to late nineties,
Telic thinking dates back at least to the ancient Greeks. Also Creation is a subset of ID which means that Creation could be false and ID could still be true. As for blind faith, well that is what it takes to be an evolutionist as reality demonstrates that they definitely don't have any science to support their claims.ET_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

chris haines: "Absent Divine Intervention, only life begets life." Well, I would say: "Absent Divine Intervention, or some even more miraculous OOL event, only life begets life." Whatever our worldview, OOL must certainly have been something really strange and unusual.gpuccio_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Most respectfully, how come you're so ignorant of the Scientific Method? Didn't you ever take a course in Science? A Scientific Law is "a statement describing an observed regularity, that is falsifiable but has never been falsified, and has been confirmed by a wide body of empirical evidence." I stated a Scientific Law, called the "Creationist Law of Abiogenesis: Absent Divine Intervention, only life begets life If you got any basis for disputing it, tell us what you got. But please, no more bigoted rants. Scientific arguments only.chris haynes_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Then entire "thermal vent thing" is hysterical to me. these hot jets spewing out the building blocks of life... really? Last time I checked organic molecules are not very found of extremes - not to mention in this vent our soup theory - notice what they are doing - trying to act as if there was a RECIPE for life, just bring the right ingredients together and simmer, whalla... I don't care what ya say, you can wait a trillion trillion years and never get mama's vegetable soup going - never mind this means a detailed step by step process to get something worth eating. so stupid it hurts my head. Just another story - hey, setup a thermal vent environment in the lab, andy way you want, spend a billion on the project, you won't come away with anything like a cell... it really is like saying given the perfect miraculous circumstances, with a HUGE dose of LUCK, and maybe....give it a break - no matter in what multiverse you reside, you will never wait around long enough to see a house build itself from and explosion, or a jet aircraft fully fueled ready to take off on a runway, by waiting for it to simply come about. They must be terribly careful here, as the stories they tell sound a lot like Biblical stories, that we came from Clay - and maybe we did!Tom Robbins_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

rvb8 at #6
That statement is; “Deal with it.”
Isn't this also the current scientific consensus view of quantum mechanics? Does that mean that those who hold that view are "...people believing themselves to be beyond criticism, or investigation. Who even take questioning of their position poorly." ??awstar_{July 21, 2017
July
07
Jul
21
21
2017
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

chris haynes @5, 'Absent Divine Intervention, only life begets life. Deal with it.' Althought the admission about the necessity of the supernatural to create life is damning in a site purporting to be scientific, it is also trivial. This is because ever since ID raised its head in the mid to late nineties, those of us that have followed its advance to 2005, and then its innevitable retreat, have known it to be creation lite. No! The amazing statement that I see so many times is the null statement of people believing themselves to be beyond criticism, or investigation. Who even take questioning of their position poorly. That statement is; "Deal with it." 'It', I suppose is the position that, only God can create life. And the proceeding words, 'Deal with', translate roughly into; 'how can you have the gall to question the Almighty. Shutup, don't question, accept your lowly but Divine origins, and dare not investigate alternative origins.' Basically the position of a survile slave, unable and unwilling to question anything that contradicts belief; sometimes known as Blind Faith. No thank you!rvb8_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

"Only life begets life" That statement is incorrect, as it doesn't explain how life began. So I propose this correction, which gives an explanation of the origin of life. One that is consistent with the enormous international effort of the last 90 years conducted by the leading Scientists in Origin of Life Research . Here it is: Absent Divine Intervention, only life begets life. Deal with it.chris haynes_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

rvb8 at #3
All of these ideas from, land hot pools, to this one of strmatolite hotpools, to hydrothermal vents, all posit the same basic idea, that HASN’T changed.
Over the thousands and thousands of years man has been around, all of the chemicals, molecules, enzymes and DNA that have ever been submersed in salt water, fresh water, and toilet water has never resulted in new life. Only life begets life. Deal with it.awstar_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

'but instead in conditions more like the hot springs of Yellowstone.' "On land", sure, but still in mineral rich, hot, sun drenched, ultr-violet light ridden, molten earth core belched, pools of water. The consensus, water, minerals, energy, remains unchanged. And please, 'on land'? Technically true, yet also untrue, as it was under water. As for NEWS's casual, "This riffs off the deep sea hydrothermal vents hypothesis." No! It doesn't. That hypothesis suggested a; salt water, chemically rich, energy supplied, environment. All of these ideas from, land hot pools, to this one of strmatolite hotpools, to hydrothermal vents, all posit the same basic idea, that HASN'T changed. Warm-Hot, chemically rich water, supplied by energy, (radiation, heat, electricity), and stable. Sure that could be Yellow Stone stromatolites, or hot pools, or deep sea vents. And tediously, once again, NEWS has found controversy where scientists go, 'eh?'rvb8_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Looks like a jigsaw puzzle made of poop.polistra_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

"Astrobiologists"? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Astrobiology is a Science without any data. As such, that sounds like a good gig to me. I mean on a nice Friday in the summer, you don't really need to stay at the lab.chris haynes_{July 20, 2017
July
07
Jul
20
20
2017
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply