"Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend" Article

[Dubio]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

 

[Quetzal]

From the article...

What’s so special about them? Well, they appear in rocks most scientists date to 220 million years older than the oldest fossils, which pushes the supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.

This, admits the New York Times, “complicates the story of evolution of early life from chemicals ... .” No kidding! According to conventional geology, these microbe colonies existed on the heels of a period when Earth was undergoing heavy asteroid bombardment, making it virtually uninhabitable. This early date, adds The Times, “leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred … .”

I'm confused. If the time table is pushed back further, doesn't that allow more time for evolution to occur? Also, "asteroid bombardment" does not make a planet uninhabitable within itself.

 

[Parsimony]

First of all, they are committing the straw-man fallacy by assuming that abiogenesis is somehow necessary for evolution. It isn't. Disproving abiogenesis wouldn't do a thing to falsify the fossil record. Second of all, they don't seem to realize that the Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old and that liquid water was present up to 4.4 billion years ago. That's 700-800 million years worth of time for abiogenesis to take place.

 

[Nietzsche]

First of all, they are committing the straw-man fallacy by assuming that abiogenesis is somehow necessary for evolution. It isn't. Disproving abiogenesis wouldn't do a thing to falsify the fossil record. Second of all, they don't seem to realize that the Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old and that liquid water was present up to 4.4 billion years ago. That's 700-800 million years worth of time for abiogenesis to take place.

I do not feel we have interacted much on the forum. Judging by your faith, I feel we would butt-heads on many a number of things religiously and morally. But you are a fine example of a Scientifically Literate Christian and I wish to my own Gods that more followers of your own and his son would take a lesson from you.

 

[Rival]

I do not feel we have interacted much on the forum. Judging by your faith, I feel we would butt-heads on many a number of things religiously and morally. But you are a fine example of a Scientifically Literate Christian and I wish to my own Gods that more followers of your own and his son would take a lesson from you.

Christians in the UK are more scientific in my experience. My local Vicar, for example, is a nuclear physicist who studied at Oxford

 

[George-ananda]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

Well, I think there is dramatically more to the origin of life than physical science knows at this time. I do not think life originated from scratch on earth. The universe is teeming with life physical and above the physical that is (and still is) involved in what we call life. This is just my considered opinion from considering information from many sources.

 

[Ouroboros]

From the article...

I'm confused. If the time table is pushed back further, doesn't that allow more time for evolution to occur? Also, "asteroid bombardment" does not make a planet uninhabitable within itself.

And even further, if the case is that biochemical evolution to first life couldn't have happened at that point, and the asteroids were bombarding the planet... it would suggest that panspermia might be the answer to abiogenesis. There are evidence that supports that complex organic molecules form around certain kinds of cold dwarf giants. Gravity is enough to hold the gases close, but the energy output of the star only puts the heat between 200-500 ºF, if I remember correctly.

And also, the finding doesn't contradict evolution of species, but only puts a question mark after abiogenesis. I'd say the article is exaggerating the "damage" this finding has to the theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

First of all, they are committing the straw-man fallacy by assuming that abiogenesis is somehow necessary for evolution. It isn't. Disproving abiogenesis wouldn't do a thing to falsify the fossil record. Second of all, they don't seem to realize that the Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old and that liquid water was present up to 4.4 billion years ago. That's 700-800 million years worth of time for abiogenesis to take place.

And only in the worst case, it would suggest panspermia, i.e. the first simple life originated somewhere else.

 

[Quetzal]

And even further, if the case is that biochemical evolution to first life couldn't have happened at that point, and the asteroids were bombarding the planet... it would suggest that panspermia might be the answer to abiogenesis.

Exactly! And this is why missions like OSIRIS-REx are really important.

 

[Quetzal]

Christians in the UK are more scientific in my experience. My local Vicar, for example, is a nuclear physicist who studied at Oxford

PSH! Go back to your tea party!
...
and send me an invite next time.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This one is pretty weak. The premise seems to be that since life cane about in those conditions, it should also be coming about in the present conditions, and further that it is not should be somehow problematic for evolution.

The two main problems I see are that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate theories, so there is an immediate category error.

The second is that we do not actually know what set of conditions would be more or less conducive to abiogenesis. It could be that the conditions then were actually far more conducive.

I see no issue here.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's like arguing:

Years ago, all we knew was that the first computer was ENIAC. And from there, the computer evolution started. New designs, inventions, products, etc, ensued.

Then we learned later, after the secrecy acts expired, that Colossus was a working computer before ENIAC.

Now, using the author's reasoning, this would mean that the computers were never invented, ENIAC didn't exist, and they never evolved or developed to what we have today. They were all created on spot by a supernatural force, just because ENIAC wasn't first.

Anyone can see that this is a form of flawed reasoning.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

I read it this morning - the author is either ignorant of what they're discussing or they were just coming up with a good click-bait title.

 

[Parsimony]

This one is pretty weak. The premise seems to be that since life cane about in those conditions, it should also be coming about in the present conditions, and further that it is not should be somehow problematic for evolution.

Right, the conditions on Earth over 4 billion years ago were anoxic. The free oxygen in the atmosphere today causes free organic compounds to more easily degrade. There is also the consideration that microbes are practically omnipresent: any fledgling proto-life forms in the process of forming today would easily be consumed by existing unicellular life.

 

[FearGod]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

Very stupid article,IMHO

 

[Twilight Hue]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

That's only based on an assumption that life was introduced from a singular source.

There is contention that a sole origin of life may not be the case as it pertains to Earth.

It is interesting stuff as far as the discovery goes, but the slant becomes rather laughable that design must of had a role simply due to an earlier introduction and that evolution progresses on a scale of time.

 

[Yerda]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

The first sentence.The author expects that "Darwinists" have to explain the origin of life. That's not the case.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The first sentence.The author expects that "Darwinists" have to explain the origin of life. That's not the case.

It is my overwhelming experience that anyone who uses the phrase "darwinism" understands very little about biological evolution.

I'm not sure if they don't understand that biology has moved on from Darwin's work or they try to use it as a derogatory term.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think #Parsimony answers best in Post #3. Evolution is not in the slightest interested in abiogenesis, nor does it have to (as the article suggests) "assume a self-replicating cell containing information in the form of genetic code." No need to assume what you've got right in front of you - by the trillions!

Darwin himself was very clear on this point -- he did not know how such organisms got their original start. But it doesn't matter to the TOE -- as long there are such organisms, Evolution is undamaged and essentially unassailable.

DUmb article.

 

[Zosimus]

Right, the conditions on Earth over 4 billion years ago were anoxic.

Speculation.