A timescale for the origin and evolution of all of life on Earth

August 20, 2018, University of Bristol
A timescale for the evolution of life on planet Earth summarising the findings of Betts et al. study. Credit: University of Bristol

A new study led by scientists from the University of Bristol has used a combination of genomic and fossil data to explain the history of life on Earth, from its origin to the present day.

Palaeontologists have long sought to understand ancient and the shared evolutionary of life as a whole.

However, the fossil record of early life is extremely fragmented, and its quality significantly deteriorates further back in time towards the Archaean period, more than 2.5 billion years ago, when the Earth's crust had cooled enough to allow the formation of continents and the only life forms were microbes.

Holly Betts, lead author of the study, from the University of Bristol's School of Earth Sciences, said: "There are few fossils from the Archaean and they generally cannot be unambiguously assigned to the lineages we are familiar with, like the blue-green algae or the salt-loving archaebacteria that colours salt-marshes pink all around the world.

"The problem with the early fossil record of life is that it is so limited and difficult to interpret—careful reanalysis of the some of the very oldest fossils has shown them to be crystals, not fossils at all."

Fossil evidence for the early history of life is so fragmented and difficult to evaluate that new discoveries and reinterpretations of known fossils have led to a proliferation of conflicting ideas about the timescale of the early history of life.

Co-author Professor Philip Donoghue, also from Bristol's School of Earth Sciences, added: "Fossils do not represent the only line of evidence to understand the past. A second record of life exists, preserved in the genomes of all living creatures."

Co-author Dr. Tom Williams, from Bristol's School of Biological Sciences, said: "Combining fossil and genomic information, we can use an approach called the 'molecular clock' which is loosely based on the idea that the number of differences in the genomes of two living species (say a human and a bacterium) are proportional to the time since they shared a common ancestor."

By making use of this method the team at Bristol and Mark Puttick from the University of Bath were able to derive a timescale for the history of life on Earth that did not rely on the ever-changing age of the oldest accepted of life.

Co-author Professor Davide Pisani said: "Using this approach we were able to show that the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all cellular , 'LUCA', existed very early in Earth's history, almost 4.5 Billion years ago—not long after Earth was impacted by the planet Theia, the event which sterilised Earth and led to the formation of the Moon.

"This is significantly earlier than the currently accepted oldest fossil evidence would suggest.

"Our results indicate that two "primary" lineages of life emerged from LUCA (the Eubacteria and the Archaebacteria), approximately one Billion years after LUCA.

"This result is testament to the power of , as it is impossible, based on the available fossil information, to discriminate between the oldest eubacterial and archaebacterial fossil remains."

The study confirms modern views that the eukaryotes, the lineage to which human life belongs (together with the plants and the fungi, for example), is not a primary lineage of life. Professor Pisani added: "It is rather humbling to think we belong to a lineage that is billions of years younger than life itself."

Explore further: Breakthrough in determining ages of different microbial groups

More information: Holly C. Betts et al, Integrated genomic and fossil evidence illuminates life's early evolution and eukaryote origin, Nature Ecology & Evolution (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0644-x

Related Stories

Just how old are animals?

May 30, 2017

The origin of animals was one of the most important events in the history of Earth. Beautifully preserved fossil embryos suggest that our oldest ancestors might have existed a little more than half a billion years ago.

Determining the timing of methanogen evolution

April 5, 2018

Early forms of life very likely had metabolisms that transformed the primordial Earth, such as initiating the carbon cycle and producing most of the planet's oxygen through photosynthesis. About 3.5 billion years ago, the ...

Life on Earth may date back 3.95 bn years: study

September 27, 2017

Rudimentary life may have existed on Earth 3.95 billion years ago, a time when our infant planet was being bombarded by comets and had hardly any oxygen, researchers said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Team uncovers the underlying mechanisms of 3-D tissue formation

November 21, 2018

If you want to build an organ for transplant, you need to think in 3-D. Using stem cells, scientists are now able to grow parts of organs in the lab, but that is a far cry from constructing a fully-formed, functioning, three-dimensional ...

What makes vertebrates special? We can learn from lancelets

November 21, 2018

Scientists once thought that humans must have 2 million genes to account for all our complexity. But since sequencing the human genome, researchers have learned that humans only have about 19,000 to 25,000 genes—not many ...

46 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TorbjornLarsson
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2018
"we were able to show that the Last Universal Common Ancestor all cellular life forms, 'LUCA', existed very early in Earth's history, almost 4.5 Billion years ago".

I have not read this paper yet, but if it is not an artifact of tree clocks, which commonly push the root as far back as it can go, it is huge.

It means life emerges at the drop of a hat ... habitable planet, I mean. And that - everything else alike - life is a common occurrence.
TorbjornLarsson
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2018
Having browsed the paper I must say it looks promising on root age, though I have to think more and check.

They claim that various clock models fit the data equally well - are robust - so they could construct extremely narrow credibility intervals. They also used the new date for the Moon forming impact at 4.52 billion years ago.

The root credibility interval is 40 million years right after the Moon forming impact, they can definitely exclude that life starts after the putative late bombardment that may have lasted to 3.9 billion years ago. That is barely sufficient time for crust cooling, and the first geological evidence of a habitable ocean is > 4.3 billion years. That said the evidence based on zircons demand oceanic crust subduction, which also may have taken a while to get started.

The point of the paper is to get away from iffy search for first paleontologic evidence, so accepting that elsewhere implies accepting the root date. Life can be *extremely frequent*!
Nik_2213
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
We may indeed learn that 'Life Will find A Way' but, even here, there was a long, long time before significant complexity emerged...
Hence the interest in exploring the deep oceans beneath those Jovian moons' ice caps.
elevyn_11_
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2018
this is not what I heard
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2018
My view is that the earliest uni-celled Life Form(s) attained such life only AFTER the great impact on the Earth that dug out and removed all of the terran regolith to subsequently form the Lunar body. It is my impression that that terran regolith, being flung away from the Earth's gravitational attraction could not fall back onto the Earth due to the Earth moving away in its orbit around the Sun.
As the Earth continued to travel along its orbit, the Lunar body compressed into a sphere while following in the wake of the Earth and then being captured by the Earth's gravitational attraction.
The oceanic bowl where the Moon materiel had been, then filled with water, enabling volcanos in the region to erupt within the water, thus creating the basis for the first uni-celled Life Forms to be created.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2018
Water-based Life Forms will not be found on arid planets, even if those planets once held water - unless it is a Life Form that is similar to Tardigrades - but then, even a desiccated Tardigrade will eventually require a source of water in order to be reconstituted and continue its life cycle.
sedumjoy
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2018
scientists are so clever and smart to look back so far....truly amazing but the most basic data points are missing.....no one is yet clever enough to solve it.......is the universe filled with life? is the universe filled with intelligent life? are we the crown jewel of evolution's show piece? is the evolution engine on the frontal lobe still on the march? or did it reach a limit. You know transuranic elements can only get so large....but you know that ...I think the last element which was a true feat of human endeavor was 118....but there is a limit. as the complexity of the element gets larger the half life goes to 0 so it would decay before it could even get a chance to get started. Is evolution that way? are we it? A Pogo cartoon. " We have met the enemy and it is us".....scientists still can't answer poor Pogo
Steelwolf
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
I am intrigued by their statement that the impact where: "Earth was impacted by the planet Theia, the event which sterilised Earth and led to the formation of the Moon."

Sterilized the planet of What? Perhaps there were life forms which DID manage to survive, from each planet, one being the Eubacteria and the other being Archeabacteria, and their subsequent later mixing is what gave rise to our forms, while the others still perist.

This may be part of the problem in figuring out the 'beginnings of life' as we may represent the fusion of two completely different life-generating events that randomly mixed.

It would certainly tend to show that there are a lot more types of life forms possible out there, and that a great many different conditions can bring it about. Considering the number of niches filled here on Earth, as far as we know, life is nearly everywhere we look.
Anonym518498
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2018
these people are wrong, consult fred hoyle and enrico fermi
Cusco
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2018
these people are wrong, consult fred hoyle and enrico fermi


What do an astronomer and a physicist (both dead) know about the genetic clock of organisms? Zilch. Their specialties have nothing to do with biology or genetics. Yes, they both speculated that life arrived from space, but both **recognized and acknlowedged** that they were speculating on no evidence.

Panspermia is an intriguing concept, but so far we have no evidence for it at all.
rubiks6
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2018
Wow. Conjecture based on conjecture arising from conjecture.

"The problem with the early fossil record of life is that it is so limited and difficult to interpret—careful reanalysis of the some of the very oldest fossils has shown them to be crystals, not fossils at all."

Is it any better with the genomic "record"? There is no record. We have no genetic material older than a few badly deteriorated scraps from things found in amber - a few tens of thousands of years at best. We have zero basis for understanding rates of genetic change or even knowing what species are related to one another. Species with very similar DNA can have dramatically different morphologies and species with similar morphologies can have dramatically divergent DNA. Then again, the popular conjecture is that DNA was not the first medium to carry life-information, anyway.

Boy, these folks sure can make good heady discussions, but at the end of the day it's just conjecture based on conjecture arising ...
rubiks6
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 21, 2018
The idea is that, if we build the structure tall enough and beautiful enough, maybe no one will notice the sand foundation. It's Jenga science.
nerdsrule
5 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2018
Great article, but my head almost exploded from reading the comment section. So this is where all the smart people have been hanging out while the rest of us were left to deal with people who think evolution is still just a theory. LMAO (Although it looks like one of them may snuck over here, arguing there's no such thing as a genomisc record. you guys should nip that bud,)
FredJose
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 21, 2018
Atheists cannot stomach the idea that they are building castles in the air....
A second record of life exists, preserved in the genomes of all living creatures."

What we now know of the genomic record clearly shows that abiogenesis would be impossible. It also shows that darwinian evolution is impossible.
It's just that atheists absolutely require some magic that allows life itself to arise from dead materials and random physical or chemical processes all by itself with no outside intelligence involved.
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have already done the analysis that shows chemical evolution to be a load of muck not worth the hot air being tossed about. It's just atheists who reject the real science behind that analysis that still have to cling to the fairy tale(s) of abiogenesis and darwinian evolution.
FredJose
1 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2018
Just so by the way -
'LUCA', existed very early in Earth's history, almost 4.5 Billion years ago— not long after Earth was impacted by the planet Theia, the event which sterilised Earth and led to the formation of the Moon.

This is a myth of the first proportion and not science at all. It is pure, unadulterated speculation of the extreme kind.
Let's see: Earth is supposedly 4.53 billion years old accodring to a wild google search. Yet life appeared 4.5 billion years ago. So life arose on earth in just 0.03 billion years from scratch, no intelligence allowed? Does that sound like a whole lot of bull dust or what?

Atheists seem to be completely ignorant of what makes up the most basic biologically living thing. How else would they make the claim that life can arise all by itself from random chemical and physical processes in 30 million years? Before the earth had time to cool off? Or water arrived? or air? Did it arrive from elsewhere? Proof? Where?
George_McIlvaine
5 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2018
The researchers and the reporter fail to mention that this approach was invented by Carl Woese, the evolutionary microbiologist who discovered the archaebacteria.
Cusco
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2018
"It also shows that darwinian evolution is impossible."

Amusing. So when plants and animals are observed evolving into new species (and yes, contrary to your religious propaganda it has been observed many times) we're seeing what? A miracle? Maybe the devil swooped in to change those creatures in order to fool us? Good grief.
Claudius
5 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2018

This is a myth of the first proportion and not science at all. It is pure, unadulterated speculation of the extreme kind.


Perhaps you are not familiar with the scientific method. Also, you should have phrased it "myth of the first order" rather than proportion, which is not an appropriate use in that context.

You should read the Wikipedia article: "scientific method" for your edification.

TorbjornLarsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2018
@Steelwolf: Yes, with that credibility interval Tellus (the Venus-massed proto-Earth that Theia impacted) could have been inhabited too.

On the number of emergence after the impact, if you look at the tree you can see that there were only one surviving lineage that early split into two domains. We share the same genetic machinery, and the combinatorics works out so the likelihood against multiple emergences for extant life is > 10^2000. That life emerged on Earth, and once, is the best observed fact we have in all of science.

@SEU: "the earliest uni-celled Life Form(s) attained such life only AFTER the great impact".
Yes, that is the observation. You may want to read the paper for more detail.

@sedumjoy: As I noted, this result imply that life is extremely frequent. Future observations will tell more.
Also, science is mostly hard work, same as any demanding job. Oh, there is cleverness too, but mostly spread over groups today.
TorbjornLarsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2018
@rubiks: People have back-sequenced dinosaur proteins, so we have nearly 100 million year old sequences. The oldest fossil DNA is something like 0.4 million years old IIRC.

But this misses the point, with tree methods we look at genetic sequences that are - apparently - 4.5 billion years old! I have been working with this, and has the opportunity to visit one of the experts on the area. He had worked with Tom Williams, one of the authors, who is a really fantastic scientist.

[tbctd]
TorbjornLarsson
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2018
[ctd]

For you and the rest of the fact denying creationists out there that are usually too boring trivial to respond to (really, no genetic record; really, the observation that early life was sterile and now it is not does not mean we have observed life emergence!? really, secular science is "atheist"? - trivially boring):

"Core thinking error underlies belief in creationism, conspiracy theories: study ... The findings may help to explain how certain types of misinformation spread so easily aided by social media channels."
https://medicalxp...ism.html
WithoutSorrow
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2018
This is a myth of the first proportion and not science at all. It is pure, unadulterated speculation of the extreme kind...Atheists seem to be completely ignorant of what makes up the most basic biologically living thing.


Molecular clocks (MCs) are certainly not a myth, though the calibration of MCs and the underlying assumption that mutations accumulate at a more or less constant rate is where much debate arises. And rightfully so--science is a process that requires its practitioners to be skeptical and critical of new claims (MCs were proposed in the '60s by Linus Pauling)

Fred Jose, I am trying to understand why you insist on attacking atheists. Biologists, atheist and theist alike, have a good idea of what makes up the most basic "biologically living thing" (hint: you're composed of trillions of these). Do you feel threatened by the topic of the article, as though its support for evolutionary theory is an attack on your beliefs?
TorbjornLarsson
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2018
Oops, I meant to say that early *Earth" was sterile et cetera,
Anonym642864
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2018
The formation of inorganic to organic is the first life i.e which consume methane as a gas which prevented in the formation of first carbohydrate. In lame language the fight between deities(carbohydrate) and demon (methane).
rrwillsj
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2018
Gotta wonder about the stuporstitious misusing scientific terminology and abusing hypothetical speculations to prop up the sand castle of religious belief/delusions.

If the "Evil Satanically-Inspired" Scientific Method and the technology evolving out of empirical research are wrong? It is all wrong!

No electricity, no mechanical devices, no genetically modified crops, no images from telescope or microscope, no "Perspective", no nuclear, quantum or gravity, no clocks or precision instruments, no microscopic creatures of any kind, no aerodynamics or hydraulics,.

None of that "atheist", ungodly, antireligious evil-doing would be possible.

When you "tripe believers" sit down before a computer to type in your delusional interpretations of incompetent translators. You are committing blasphemy, each & every time you use any modern technology.

What you pathetic fools are too stupid to understand is that reality is a stochastic product of Stupid Design by drunken deities.
mynoob
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2018
There something different about star fish species. They go back to nearly half billion (470 mln) according to wiki, may be you have some bacteria who can compete but these things are bigger? There is a movie which build on this https://www.space...ler.html

Before you can speculate about evolution/mutation and other possible origins of life, you have to ask yourself what is a goal it pursues. Sometimes it looks like there is a common goal.
PTTG
5 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2018
Anyone who proposes that a deity created life should also have an explanation for how that deity can be all-loving and yet also be the creator of so many parasites and diseases that afflict innocent humans.
FredJose
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
@PTTG
Anyone who proposes that a deity created life should also have an explanation for how that deity can be all-loving and yet also be the creator of so many parasites and diseases that afflict innocent humans.

Quite simply, PTTG, in the beginning everything was VERY good, with no disease, no suffering, no death. Then, our first ancestors, Adam and Eve transgressed and the earth was cursed by the Creator as a result.
You are now witnessing the outcome of that curse. That is the straight-forward and plain explanation for disease, suffering and death in the world. It is the result of MAN's choice to attempt to usurp the sovereignty of God himself.

Now, if any Christian tells you that s/he subscribes to the evolutionary paradigm, then you can legitimately ask him/her why God created such a situation if He is supposedly good. I do not subscribe to that myth because it's simply impossible. The bible is true in its historical narrative.
FredJose
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
@CUSCO
So when plants and animals are observed evolving into new species (and yes, contrary to your religious propaganda it has been observed many times) we're seeing what

Please, friend, it would be very helpful if you know why I made the distinction and put "darwinian" in front of the word.
It is precisely because evolutionists want to use the word evolution in this ambiguously misleading way that I refer to it as meaning the progression from a common single celled organism into all kinds of complex lifeforms we encounter today.
Of course there is speciation. What makes you think that creationists deny that?
And by the way speciation is a result of what has already been designed into the organisms, not as a result of profoundly new, novel structures and functions arising at random.
Creationists believe in a widely defined kind or family if you wish with restricted or limited dynamic variation within that kind already built in - hence your speciation.
FredJose
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
@rrwillsj
If the "Evil Satanically-Inspired" Scientific Method and the technology evolving out of empirical research are wrong? It is all wrong!
You seem to have a very wrangled idea of what biblical creationists believe.
You do realize that without the Christian philosophy of God -given consistency and understand ability science would have been still-born or non-existent at all?
Most of the things you mention are grounded in theories and lab work by done by Christian creationists. Go check out your history of science to see who was responsible for some of the most useful fundamental discovered scientific principles that underpin our current technology today.
FredJose
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
@withoutsorrow
Molecular clocks (MCs) are certainly not a myth, though the calibration of MCs and the underlying assumption that mutations accumulate at a more or less constant rate is where much debate arises.

Sure, there is the molecular clock in use today - did I argue about that?
To be sure, evolutionists want to use it to date things into the billions of years but they carefully neglect to also put into the equation the fully verified deleterious entropy of the genome.
That entropy tells us that the genome across all kinds and species is deteriorating so fast that there just isn't enough time for any kind of evolutionary history into even the hundreds of thousands of years. So the use of the biological genome as a clock to support darwinian evolution is a mis-application of the first order.
Our genome is accumulating bad mutations at such a rate that we will not last another 10k years - and there's nothing to stop it. Natural selection cannot cut it out.
FredJose
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
@without sorrow
Fred Jose, I am trying to understand why you insist on attacking atheists.

I am not attacking atheists but the non-scientific and mythical ideas and philosophies they are propagating as truth.

1. Everything from nothing, aka the big bang.
2. Stars from clouds of gas all by themselves in contradiction of basic principles of physics
3. Ditto formation of planets.
4. Life arising from dead materials all by itself via random chemical and physical processes.
5. Darwinian evolution - the creation of new novel abstract entities and information via random physical or biological processes.

These are contrary to what is true and believing these things will cost people their place in eternity with our Creator. That is why I'm vehemently against such empty philosophies.
FredJose
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2018
@TorbjornLarson
That life emerged on Earth, and once, is the best observed fact we have in all of science.

This is a very ambiguous statement. With "emerge" do you mean to say that life arose all by itself via random chemical and physical processes or do you mean that it actually currently exists as the only example that we know of in the universe?
If it is the former meaning then you could not have "observed" any of it. There is just no observational support for such an impossible event. So if you meant abiogenesis then it definitely was not observed and any statement to the effect that it actually happened is really dishonest and misleading from a purely scientific point of view.
Cusco
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2018
2. Stars from clouds of gas all by themselves in contradiction of basic principles of physics
3. Ditto formation of planets.
...
5. Darwinian evolution - the creation of new novel abstract entities and information via random physical or biological processes.


All three of those things are being observed AS WE SPEAK, the first two at thousands of different locations within our own galaxy, the third at dozens of locations on our own planet.

the fully verified deleterious entropy of the genome.
That entropy tells us that the genome across all kinds and species is deteriorating...


Fully verified? By whom? Sorry, that's just plain not true. Not sure if you're lying or just gullible.
Creationists like to pretend that the Second Law of Thermodynamics somehow applies here, willfully ignoring the gigantic thermonuclear reactor a few million miles away that is constantly pouring 1.74 x 10^17 watts of energy onto the planet.
Absurd.
FredJose
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2018
@TorbjornLarsson
For you and the rest of the fact denying creationists out there that are usually too boring trivial to respond to

Is it really a FACT that earth was hit by a planet Theia to form the moon. Or is that just wild speculation?
Is it really a FACT that life arose all by itself from dead materials via random chemical and physical processes - in the process forming highly abstract entities like codes, decoding, repair and replication?
Is it really a FACT that single cellular organisms organized themselves into multi-cellular entities and the abilities to replicate themselves - all without any outside force or intelligence?
Have you had a look into what is required to do self-replication and did you figure out the probabilities of such ability arising from nothing via random processes?
You need those most basic of abilities to even begin mentioning darwinian evolution and right now it is pretty much impossible.
Where are your FACTS???? AWOL???
FredJose
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2018
@Claudius
Perhaps you are not familiar with the scientific method. Also, you should have phrased it "myth of the first order" rather than proportion, which is not an appropriate use in that context.

You should read the Wikipedia article: "scientific method" for your edification.


How ironic, friend!
Perhaps you should read that definition very carefully yourself and then apply it to the reasoning presented in this article and see if it conforms.
Ask yourself where is the observational evidence of a planet hitting the earth and forming the moon.
Where is the observational and confirming evidence that life can arise from dead materials all by itself via random chemical and physical processes?
Apply the scientific method strictly to all the evolutionary ideas and see exactly how lame it turns out to be. So please, take your own advice and use it diligently to save yourself. I have already done so and the atheistic philosophies fall very short of the mark.
Cusco
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2018
Oh, and this bit of foolishness.
speciation is a result of what has already been designed into the organisms, not as a result of profoundly new, novel structures and functions arising at random.


Your "designer" is an incompetent then. Eyes have evolved a dozen different times (some of them more efficient than ours, which were created "in his image"), flight has evolved half a dozen times and is currently in the process of evolving again in fish and squirrels, we're full of symbiotic organisms (some of which are necessary to our health), and the DNA of everything is full of junk left over from previous stages of evolution and earlier viral infections.

Any evidence of coherent "design" is utterly lacking in the organisms on Earth, what we see is a mishmash of bits and pieces of organs and metabolic processes that are "good enough". Nothing is efficient or optimized, everything is just good enough to prevent being lunch for something else before reproducing and no better.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2018
You need those most basic of abilities to even begin mentioning darwinian evolution and right now it is pretty much impossible.


You don't, evolution is correct even if God himself personally waved a magic wand to create first life and the Moon. You keep linking evolution with less certain theories but that is a logical fallacy.
rrwillsj
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2018
Thanks Cusco, you said it better than I could.

I would reiterate that the chaotic results of Stupid Design is what makes Evolution possible. The dice fly, bouncing off the backboard, rolling to a stop. Revealing the winners and the losers in this Game of Reality. "You places your bets and takes your chances!"

It is all about the Span of Time. The narrow-minded think that the world is enclosed in the tiny box of ego that defines their vision of reality. The actual reality on a Cosmic scale, is that you are a minuscule bit of short-lived trivia.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2018
[ctd]

For you and the rest of the fact denying creationists out there that are usually too boring trivial to respond to (really, no genetic record; really, the observation that early life was sterile and now it is not does not mean we have observed life emergence!? really, secular science is "atheist"? - trivially boring):

"Core thinking error underlies belief in creationism, conspiracy theories: study ... The findings may help to explain how certain types of misinformation spread so easily aided by social media channels."
https://medicalxp...ism.html

says t b g l

As a Creationist, I have to explain to you the differences between a member of a Religion and one who believes that Man was specifically CREATED by God, while all other life forms of Earth have evolved from their predecessors who had also evolved from the first single-celled life form THAT GOD ALSO CREATED in the waters of Earth.
-continued-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Religionists who take Genesis in the Bible at face value, cannot understand how it came to be that single-celled life forms emerged, first in the waters, and then onto the land masses. They only read Genesis and fully accept all of the misinterpretations as the Word of God when the Book of Genesis is so incomplete. But Religionists follow blindly without question and very seldom, if ever, read between the lines to understand better how it all came to be.
And we Creationists have studied Genesis and have come to understand that the scribes who wrote down what the Givers had told them to write, got so much of it wrong and wrote Genesis in the wrong sequence of events as well as the proper timelines of those events. They could not have known about Evolution since such things were not known at the time.
But we cannot convince Religionists of their ignorance, so we don't try.
For those who don't believe in God the Creator, that is your choice to make, not ours.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2018
Oh, and this bit of foolishness.
speciation is a result of what has already been designed into the organisms, not as a result of profoundly new, novel structures and functions arising at random.


Your "designer" is an incompetent then. Eyes have evolved a dozen different times (some of them more efficient than ours, which were created "in his image"), flight has evolved half a dozen times and(..)

Any evidence of coherent "design" is utterly lacking in the organisms on Earth, what we see is a mishmash of bits and pieces of organs and metabolic processes that are "good enough". Nothing is efficient or optimized, everything is just good enough to prevent being lunch for something else before reproducing and no better.
says Cusco

The "designer" as you say, built into the first life forms the ability to EVOLVE/CHANGE, according to environmental and other needs. Humans were not created in the EXACT image of God, otherwise we would be immortal.
TorbjornLarsson
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2018
@TorbjornLarson
That life emerged on Earth, and once, is the best observed fact we have in all of science.


This is a very ambiguous statement. With "emerge" do you mean to say [irrelevant alternatives]


It is not ambiguous,and we are discussing partly deterministic processes, so drop the superstitious "random vs magic" irrelevancies. I was just noting that emergence is an observation, no more or less.
TorbjornLarsson
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2018
As a Creationist, I have to [utter incomprehensible rant laced with irrelevant religion]


Thanks for making my point with linking the reference. This is a thread for the article topic of timescale for life emergence and evolution.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2018
You do realize that without the Christian philosophy of God -given consistency and understand ability science would have been still-born or non-existent at all?
Well yeah you guys consistently disregard evidence But its really not the same thing is it?
Anonym642864
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
To my mind after bacteria and virus the next life must be the consumer of methane and other gases thus concentration of nitrogen increased.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.