Evidence of photosynthesis on earth at least 4.1 billion years ago.

[Pterodactylus]

So, this discovery puts the possibility of early life to 4.1 billion years, but it is by no means confirmed.

Pretty strong evidence though. And you'll never get the type of confirmation we'd like considering that most of the oldest rocks that hold the "confirmation" are long since gone.

[zox2]

Did photosynthesis happen by random chance or was it the plant's destiny to develop photosynthesis? That everything needed was there and photosynthesis was inevitable? Why haven't animals developed it?

Evolution is not random chance, only mutations are, it also has no destiny.

When photosynthesis was developing, there were no plants or animals, only bacteria. Photosynthesis is just one of the ways of producing energy. Animals need orders of magnitude more energy than plants, so for them photosynthesis is not an option. That said, there are some animals that have endosymbiotic algae, who help them synthesize sugars and other compounds, therefore need light to live.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty strong evidence though. And you'll never get the type of confirmation we'd like considering that most of the oldest rocks that hold the "confirmation" are long since gone.

This discovery is interesting in a way that it puts the possibility on the table, and provides a methodology for further observation (and therefore possible grant money), but we need much more evidence than what is in this study. Abiotic processes are not yet adequately eliminated or explained yet, nor are possible statistical fluctuations.

Again, this is an interesting study, but far from proof yet.

[Adam Jensen]

Yeah the beginning of life is such a useless knowledge.... Its almost as if Terraforming was not a thing!

Or more immediately, as if understanding biology at its most fundamental level isn't important to medical technology.

- - - Updated - - -

Evolution is not random chance, only mutations are, it also has no destiny.

People should read "Why Evolution is true." It goes into great detail on the difference between the random chance of mutation and the more predictable changes of natural selection.

Essentially, errors in DNA replication (mutation) are 100% random. But natural selection, which determines which mutations survive and which do not, is driven by environmental factors and is not random.

In fact, people should read that book just because it's an incredible trove of information and it describes evolution in great detail.

[Endus]

Or it could be even simpler than that. It could be that life, once it exists, makes it impossible for life to spring into being. Either consuming the needed ingredients, or preventing more complex reactions from occurring. This is of course, me just talking out my ass, but I tend to think that life has a tendency form, and will form where conditions are such to support it. The evidence I present in this is simply the fact that life is here on earth and formed, as far as we can tell, as soon as conditions were such to support it.

I think that's being a bit unfair. Everything we've discovered shares a genetic heritage; not only are we chemically similar, there's shared genetics that demonstrate that we all derive from the same abiogenetic source point. While it's possible that other forms just failed to compete, the Earth is a widely diverse biosphere, and that diversity has allowed for such variety of life that I find it a little incredulous that no other abiogenetic instance could have found a foothold in some other area of the biosphere.

Also, it bears mentioning that the early emergence doesn't necessarily mean that life's emergence is simple. It could be insanely complex and specific, and that just happened to occur, by random chance, very early on. Like walking into a casino, tossing a nickel in the slot machine, and winning the jackpot right off. Doesn't mean you should expect that on other planets, but it's quite possible we're a freakish occurrence. We have little capacity to tell, since we're living inside that occurrence. If you had nothing else to work from but your single pull of a slot machine lever, you'd think slots were easy money for anyone who needed more; that doesn't make it true, it just reflects your lack of greater understanding about that process.

[Pterodactylus]

People should read "Why Evolution is true."

Yes, yes, yes! It is a great book, a great resource and written to the lay person.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that's being a bit unfair. Everything we've discovered shares a genetic heritage; not only are we chemically similar, there's shared genetics that demonstrate that we all derive from the same abiogenetic source point. While it's possible that other forms just failed to compete, the Earth is a widely diverse biosphere, and that diversity has allowed for such variety of life that I find it a little incredulous that no other abiogenetic instance could have found a foothold in some other area of the biosphere.

Also, it bears mentioning that the early emergence doesn't necessarily mean that life's emergence is simple. It could be insanely complex and specific, and that just happened to occur, by random chance, very early on. Like walking into a casino, tossing a nickel in the slot machine, and winning the jackpot right off. Doesn't mean you should expect that on other planets, but it's quite possible we're a freakish occurrence. We have little capacity to tell, since we're living inside that occurrence. If you had nothing else to work from but your single pull of a slot machine lever, you'd think slots were easy money for anyone who needed more; that doesn't make it true, it just reflects your lack of greater understanding about that process.

Yes, perhaps, but I am sure you realize you are just arm-waving - like me. With respect to shared genetic heritage and chemical similarities, the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) is 400 +/- million years older than the carbon they found in the study I linked in the original post. The fact that all of these things are just not persevered makes it extremely difficult to say anything with much certainty. That's why I made it clear in my post that I was talking out of my ass.

We (we being "life" not necessarily hominid or intelligent life) very much could be a freakish occurrence - but I just don't think so. However, I find it very compelling that life shows up so early in the earth's history to speak to the abundance of life in the universe.

[Endus]

We (we being "life" not necessarily hominid or intelligent life) very much could be a freakish occurrence - but I just don't think so. However, I find it very compelling that life shows up so early in the earth's history to speak to the abundance of life in the universe.

I'm just saying we're a single data point. If we had multiple instances of abiogenetic events on Earth, or at least separate events on other planets and such, or the complete lack of the latter, we'd be better able to assess this. At this point, we really lack any feasible data.

[Malachi256]

Whether you are a pure philosophical naturalist or not, abiogenesis by all current evidence is miraculous.

[Endus]

Whether you are a pure philosophical naturalist or not, abiogenesis by all current evidence is miraculous.

Not for any useful definition of "miraculous", no. At best, "rare" or "complex".

[Malachi256]

Not for any useful definition of "miraculous", no. At best, "rare" or "complex".

Heh, our best evidence right now is that "we assume it has happened at least once." It has never been observed happening naturally or artificially in a lab, and we've been looking and prodding for a long time.

[Endus]

Heh, our best evidence right now is that "we assume it has happened at least once." It has never been observed happening naturally or artificially in a lab, and we've been looking and prodding for a long time.

By that notion, black holes are "miraculous". It's a nonsense word, when what you really mean is "we aren't 100% certain on all of this, yet". Something being "miraculous" suggests that it's unnatural in origin, which is patent nonsense.

[Garnier Fructis]

Heh, our best evidence right now is that "we assume it has happened at least once." It has never been observed happening naturally or artificially in a lab, and we've been looking and prodding for a long time.

Well if you're intent on calling abiogenesis a miracle, then we've narrowed down the origin of life to basically two possibilities:
1) "Poof," which is miracle that breaks physics.
2) Abiogenesis, which would be a statistical miracle (again, predicated on the assumption that it is indeed miraculous).

Not a real hard choice.

[Alakallanar]

This is a decent site for seeing what YECs think about radiometric dating http://www.icr.org/rate/

One of the three scienctists they are referring to is Andrew A. Snelling.

Another is John Baumgardner who also signed as co-author of several papers that assume/make only sense with an old earth and/or old moon. Conversation with creationist John

The third is Russell Humphreys.

Also relevant:

http://www.oldearth.org/rate_admit.htm

[khalltusk]

I'm just saying we're a single data point. If we had multiple instances of abiogenetic events on Earth, or at least separate events on other planets and such, or the complete lack of the latter, we'd be better able to assess this. At this point, we really lack any feasible data.

I would love (in my life time) for a probe to go to Europa/Mars or one of the other Icy moons of Jupiter/Saturn and turn up evidence for life. Even if its bacterial that would be fantastic. Obviously I would also hope that its make up is so different from known life on this planet the most likely conclusion would be that it evolved on that planet so panspermia would not be a realistic option for it.

I can only dream of this of course.