Oldest fossils ever found suggest life in the universe is common

[Vargur]

Don't you mean double the time?

No, cut that in half for OUR current day, not theirs.
So the radio waves would need to have travelled half as far as they did now in order for us to receive a response now.

[Osmeric]

Interesting topic. I also can't help, but to smh at people who even want to argue that we're the only type of life in the universe, well every form of life on Earth being the only place where life exists. For the very fact that life has occurred even once, then statistically speaking it will/would happen again at some point. You can't really have something statistically happening only once and then never again.

This is a mathematically illiterate (and false) claim.

- - - Updated - - -

If we take the number of galaxies, stars, and planets. Its basically a statistical certainty that there is alien life somewhere out there. Even when people come up with ridiculous probabilities of billions to one, it still gives a ton of planets.

Please stop lying.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you fucking serious?

Speciation events take orders of tens if not hundreds of thousands of generations.

Speciation can happen faster than that. Speciation by polyploidy can occur in a single generation.

[Mafic]

And what pressure or even evidence do you have that a change has even occured? How about none.

There is a reason for those gaps. Its because humans believe that B comes from A and that B never existed b4 until A created it. However if both B and A existed at the same time and A was wiped out. People see that as a gap in the fossil record. Does anyone here know how bones are preserved? Its a rare process. The conditions required make it so tons of animals evade the fossil record just by the fact that they died and its bones were left in conditions unsuitable for preservation. Its why the record for sea life is so abundent and animal life isnt. It also shows why we think we came from the sea because hey look at all the sea bones we find. We must have evolved from that right? Cuz theres barley any animal bones to say we evolved from.

Well it is more complicated than that because you are correct how the current thinking is regarding the fossil record.

But the find of Ediacaranas was a game change regarding this current thinking as they are trace fossils of a soft bodies organisms. Hard exo skeletons don't show up till the Cambrian explosion and most of the predators lived in the sea. So, logically most of the prey were also sea creatures.

Land creatures coexisting with sea creatures isn't documented, because the bone structures of the sea creatures do not indicate this ability to also walk on land till much later in the fossil record. The bio mechanics required for walking on land has to correlate with what is found with fossils and the fossil record.

As for preservation potential this is true that land creatures are less likely to preserved than sea creatures. But what you miss is that land creatures also have greater bone density on average as they do not have the support of the oceans reducing strain on movement and the salinity of the oceans. Sea creatures have to contend with pressure as they swim deeper but that is why their bone structures are more soft bodied. So, I can flip your argument against you and say most sea creatures were soft bodied, because they needed to be to live deep in the oceans depths due to sheer pressure forces. So, the fossil record only provides a glimpse of the diversity of sea creatures that lived and we have a better idea of the number land creatures that lived in comparison.

Octopus, Squids, schools of fish, etc.

As for evolution of humans, based on DNA studies and phylogenetic systematics correlates with what the fossil record has found. The gaps are not hard to fill in using DNA to create a life tree diagram.

[ipaq]

Nothing ever evolved from nothing and nothing ever turned into another kind of animal even if given 9999999999999999999999 generations.

If you think that actually happened, go show me 30 examples of fossils that show dinosaurs becoming humming birds.

Spoiler, there are zero, and never will be found.

Atheists just believe everything those professional atheists "find".

Been proven with fruit flies a long time ago.

Stop being such a gullible religious nut.

[wunksta]

This part that i bolded means that yes, scientific theories are a belief. As until they are proven you are required to put your faith in another human who thinks they are correct and believe what they say.

The great thing about science is that you don't have to trust anyone. The entire system is designed to be tested by everyone else. If you don't believe someone is correct, then you can go and test the evidence your self. The studies and research are published and everyone else can go through and attempt to replicate the experiments.

Evolution is a theory that cannot be proven.

Evolution is an observable phenomena. We can see it happening. You are probably talking about the theory of common origin which uses the mechanism of evolution and other evidence to explain the diversity of life that has developed over millions of years.

Another misconception is that stuff can be 'proven'. This only happens in math. Science is a system of collecting evidence, making hypotheses, testing them, and using peer review to have other people test and review everything. It's a self correcting process that anyone can participate in and our explanations are constantly being refined as new evidence is found and new tests are performed. Gravity is an observable phenomena. The theory on how it works is based on evidence that we have collected and is constantly being refined. It's not proven or set in stone. We don't have to trust anyone or believe that it's true. We can observe this ourselves, collect our own evidence and run our own tests to arrive at the same conclusions.

[Lollis]

This is a mathematically illiterate (and false) claim.

And then add one.

Infinity.

Please stop lying..

Number of galaxies estimated 200 billion to 2 trillion.
Number of stars per galaxy, estimated 100 billion.
Number of planets per star, estimated minimum of one per star.
Number of planets per galaxy estimated to be in habitable zones 40%
Number of planets estimated to be earth sized 1 in 6.



200,000,000,000 * (100,000,000,000*0.4) = 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

8 sextillion planets.

One in 6 earth sized = 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.

'Estimated' chance of life, 1 in 1 billion : 1,300,000,000,000 planets.
'Estimated' chance of life, 1 in 1 billion when earth sized doesn't matter : 8,000,000,000,000 planets

Tell me I am lying. Or does a trillion not meet your standards of 'a ton of planets'?

Speciation can happen faster than that. Speciation by polyploidy can occur in a single generation.

Yes it can, which is why my subsequent post corrected it to 'usually'. Conventional definitions of speciation are usually concerning often quite severe changes, such as the evolutionary differences between primate species A and primate species Z. My post's focus was on such a premise. Polyploidy and ring speciation are just other ways that change is shown, but it gets to the point where putting "this cannot happen, except when this happens, and also sometimes this happens too" gets a little bit too much.

[Deleted]

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/1...sil-ever-found

Life eh eh finds a way!

Only 4 pages in and religion has already poisoned the discussion. Idiots eh eh find a way!

- - - Updated - - -

A full frilled shark fossil was found, they claimed it was an extinct animal that lived and went exctinct BEFORE the dinosaurs. Guess what happened in 2008, a living frilled shark was found. RIP evolution.

No complete or incomplete fossil supports any macro evolution theory. Yet if macro evolution was possible, there should be 100000s found by now.

You don’t seem to understand how extremely rare fossils are unless the specimens have existed for a very long time in very large numbers. That’s why you’re more likely to find fossils of invertebrates rather than dinosaurs or mammals. And if you do find fossils of the latter, they’re nearly always incomplete.
Why that is shouldn’t require much imagination for you, since imagination seems to be your strong side.

- - - Updated - - -

Isnt it weird how people give into evolution so easily when its basically a trial-error theory that needs either long as time frame to occur or it needs quadrillions^10 power of life cycles to occur. And these same people thing that we humans who have a life span of 80 or so years which would have been even less millions of years ago because of any number of things that would have killed us off. They think that we had the time or the number of life cycles to evolve when the average human woman maybe has 3-5 kids a life time and the human population is just now reaching 7 billion and im looking at this chart that says it was 1 billion in the 1800's.

If this is the growth of humanity and we were to have evolved from somthing else. Then why the hell are insects not evolving. Like at all. Not only do they reproduce exponentially more than we humans do. But they have shorter life cycles and their population is exponentially more than ours. Why are they not evolving? Theres soo many examples as to why evolution does not work yet people believe it does.

Just because you find an extinct fossil does not mean X extinct fossil is an ancestor of somthing still running around today. If i take all the Jackrabbits/hares and kill them off. And a million years later someone finds a jackrabbit/hare fossil it does not mean that it is an ancestor of all the rabbits still running around a million years from now.

You get my point. Theres alot of assumptions being made because theres no one to have recorded the history of animals throughout Earths history. But i cant take one species of whale, make it extinct. Wait 1 million years and then claim its an ancestor to what ever whale is left.

Isn’t it weird how you completely ignored what Mafic wrote to you, explaining what you’re so ignorant about? It’s almost like you can’t defend your position without splitting hairs and arguing ridiculous semantic and word interpretation..

You’re sitting here, with no fucking knowledge on the subject at fucking all, making a judgement about said subject with nothing but your own ignorance. Absolutely ridiculous and farcical.

Stop trying to derail a scientific discussion with your nonsensical, religious garbage. It’s against the bloody rules. There’s always one or two of you people who just can’t fucking shut it.

- - - Updated - - -

You saying that really demonstrates that you don't understand math very well.

This person doesn’t understand anything very well. Or said person would have the logic to not talk about a complex subject person doesn’t even have an elementary school grasp on.

[Powerogue]

So the gist sounds to be that since the earliest known life was already complex enough to qualify as multiple species, that must mean the earliest life period must've been even earlier and evolved in a much harsher environment than previously thought?

Maybe understanding this earlier proto-life and how it survived in such alien environments compared to what we see today could help us engineer life for other planets, even if we can't find it there ourselves. It even brings up the issue of cross-contamination if we by accident introduce an invasive species to a planet that seemed uninhabitable at first glance without our intervention.

Once we get over our comical ego trip as a species that earth was sculpted just for us, we'll finally be able to turn the tables and sculpt the universe.

I'm going to make a creature shaped like a penis!

[Osmeric]

Tell me I am lying. Or does a trillion not meet your standards of 'a ton of planets'?

Dude. Please stop overestimating your intellectual grasp on this issue. Your argument is fundamentally clueless.

The fact that there are lots and lots and lots of planets DOES NOT MATTER. Why doesn't it matter? Because we have no good lower bound on the chance that life arises on a planet.

Suppose there are N planets. If the chance of life arising on a planet is less than 1/N, then the expected number of lifebearing planets will be less than 1. By chance, it's quite possible that only Earth had life.

This argument works regardless of how large N is.

Yes it can, which is why my subsequent post corrected it to 'usually'. Conventional definitions of speciation are usually concerning often quite severe changes, such as the evolutionary differences between primate species A and primate species Z. My post's focus was on such a premise. Polyploidy and ring speciation are just other ways that change is shown, but it gets to the point where putting "this cannot happen, except when this happens, and also sometimes this happens too" gets a little bit too much.

Polyploidy is a quite common cause of speciation in plants. It's not minor. And remember the definition of species typically used is reproductive isolation. Polyploidy can produce this in one shot.

Even the more usually considered form of speciation doesn't necessarily take tens of thousands of years, btw.

[StayTuned]

I think these people are paid to post shit in a thread like this. They must be.

In any case, please could you people at least get your shit right about science?

Science is a method. Nothing else. The very last it is, is a belief system.

And it's the best tool we have, because unlike other forms of " education" , science can be and is used to disprove itself upon new data.

[Lollis]

Dude. Please stop overestimating your intellectual grasp on this issue. Your argument is fundamentally clueless.

The fact that there are lots and lots and lots of planets DOES NOT MATTER. Why doesn't it matter? Because we have no good lower bound on the chance that life arises on a planet.

Suppose there are N planets. If the chance of life arising on a planet is less than 1/N, then the expected number of lifebearing planets will be less than 1. By chance, it's quite possible that only Earth had life.

This argument works regardless of how large N is.

If you actually read my fucking post it would be lovely.

I premised with the idea that people spout 1 in a billion for the chance of life. Please feel free to continue with your bullshit though.

[Garnier Fructis]

If you actually read my fucking post it would be lovely.

I premised with the idea that people spout 1 in a billion for the chance of life. Please feel free to continue with your bullshit though.

And one of his points is that there's no good justification for that premise. Or for any estimate on the chance of life.

[Osmeric]

If you actually read my fucking post it would be lovely.

I premised with the idea that people spout 1 in a billion for the chance of life. Please feel free to continue with your bullshit though.

This is what you wrote:

If we take the number of galaxies, stars, and planets. Its basically a statistical certainty that there is alien life somewhere out there. Even when people come up with ridiculous probabilities of billions to one, it still gives a ton of planets.

You said EVEN IF, not IF. That is, your two sentences there are an unconditional claim, and then you ridiculed the idea that the chance of life on a planet was "billions to one".

[kenthovind]

But if they're just a century behind us in technology, we'd have no idea they're there. And perhaps they're so advanced that radio waves are obsolete and they use something else that is too exotic for us?

- - - Updated - - -



How's the wifi in prison Mr. Hovind? I do believe Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." So, I find it a bit hypocritical you got your ass in jail for failing to pay your taxes as Jesus taught you.

Also, we've got the fossils.
And the vestigial organs.
And the geological layers
And the genetic codes
And the DNA
And the pre-DNA nucleic acids

Also, we've got the fossils. ---- Show me them, there should be trillions of intermediate forms between Dinosaurs and humming birds, there are zero found ever.

And the vestigial organs. ---- Zero vestigal organs confirmed, there should be trillions of them if an evolutionary process turned soup to humans.

Evolutionists have even stopped presenting imaginary vestigal organs as evidence for macro evolution in their debates, even in 2004.

And the geological layers ---- They don't exist anywhere, they only exist in your imagination and drawn in books, they never exist anywhere in reality, what atheists believe those layers to be are simply layers formed after a flood, it's called hydrologic sorting, and those layers can ONLY be explained by a flood, nothing else can possibly sort different types of sands like that. If you know of a different method, show me.

And the genetic codes ----- Code is the programming language used by the intelligent CREATOR to turn tissue size of an atom, into a fully functional and complex lifeform (programmed to die though).

And the DNA ----- DNA is the software the intelligent creator used to make all mortal lifeform, nothing in water, or soup, or rocks, or dirt resembles the helix shape of DNA, yet all LIVING lifeforms have that exact same shape = always was like that and doesn't change = no evolution.

I can debate you on this all day, I have the science, you have the myths.

[Garnier Fructis]

Also, we've got the fossils. ---- Show me them, there should be trillions of intermediate forms between Dinosaurs and humming birds, there are zero found ever.

And the vestigial organs. ---- Zero vestigal organs confirmed, there should be trillions of them if an evolutionary process turned soup to humans.

Evolutionists have even stopped presenting imaginary vestigal organs as evidence for macro evolution in their debates, even in 2004.

And the geological layers ---- They don't exist anywhere, they only exist in your imagination and drawn in books, they never exist anywhere in reality, what atheists believe those layers to be are simply layers formed after a flood, it's called hydrologic sorting, and those layers can ONLY be explained by a flood, nothing else can possibly sort different types of sands like that. If you know of a different method, show me.

And the genetic codes ----- Code is the programming language used by the intelligent CREATOR to turn tissue size of an atom, into a fully functional and complex lifeform (programmed to die though).

And the DNA ----- DNA is the software the intelligent creator used to make all mortal lifeform, nothing in water, or soup, or rocks, or dirt resembles the helix shape of DNA, yet all LIVING lifeforms have that exact same shape = always was like that and doesn't change = no evolution.

I can debate you on this all day, I have the science, you have the myths.

If you've got the science, you should be able to source all the analyses that concluded that there should be trillions of X if Y is true.

[kenthovind]

If you've got the science, you should be able to source all the analyses that concluded that there should be trillions of X if Y is true.

Most of the fossils, way above 95% are the result of the world wide flood during Noah's time. The heavy density boned creatures (big reptiles) were found in the deepest layers. While birds, who float when dead, did not fossilize. Only a flood accounts for all the fossils, no meteor or gas.

[Garnier Fructis]

Most of the fossils, way above 95% are the result of the world wide flood during Noah's time. The heavy density boned creatures (big reptiles) were found in the deepest layers. While birds, who float when dead, did not fossilize. Only a flood accounts for all the fossils, no meteor or gas.

That's cool. Except now you've added even more things that you aren't sourcing.

[wunksta]

His post history is entertaining.

[Osmeric]

Most of the fossils, way above 95% are the result of the world wide flood during Noah's time. The heavy density boned creatures (big reptiles) were found in the deepest layers. While birds, who float when dead, did not fossilize. Only a flood accounts for all the fossils, no meteor or gas.

You do understand this is flaming insane nonsense, right?

There are plenty of fossils of birds. Although birds don't fossilize as well as heavier-boned animals, they DO fossilize.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html
https://www.fieldmuseum.org/science/...s-fossil-birds
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-amber-fossil/
http://www.crystalinks.com/fossilbirds.html
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540896272

[Airlick]

If they’ve discovered radio astronomy we’d know about them and they certainly know about us. Every civilization that has radio astronomy within 110 LY of us would be able to hear us.

Broadcasting a signal and receiving (not to mention decoding) it are 2 completely different things. We're only listening for a few decades. And then the waves can get distorted by anything on that 200 LY distance and the other side won't receive them.