Ponce de Leon may not have discovered the fountain of youth, but life just got younger nonetheless. Scientists have long held that life has existed on Earth for 3.5 billion years based on what was thought to be fossilized bacteria discovered in a rock in Australia. That research has been called into serious question by new research. Geologists at the University of Kansas have concluded that the structures in question are hematites (a mineral), not bacteria. If their findings are confirmed, then life will be downgraded from 3.5 billion years old to 2 billion years old.
This is both good and bad for materialists. It’s always been difficult for them to explain how life could have appeared on Earth so quickly after the planet’s origin 4.5 billion years ago (and so quickly after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment period in which Earth was being plummeted with asteroids). It’s difficult enough to explain how life could have formed via natural means given 13.7 billion years, yet alone in just 300 million years as was required prior to this new discovery. Of course, given the requirements for even the simplest life form coming together by chance, being given an extra 1.5 billion years to complete the job isn’t helpful. It’s comparable to being told you have to build a house from scratch in 3 minutes, and then later being told your time has been extended to 18 minutes. Big deal. The house still won’t be finished in time.
On the other hand, this is bad news for materialists because it presents them with less time for life to have evolved into its variegated forms we see today. Explaining how simple prokaryotic bacteria could evolve into an abundance of complex, eukaryotic life forms in just 3 billion years was difficult enough. Taking away 2 billion years of productive work makes it much more difficult to achieve (or at least be believable).
March 19, 2011 at 8:09 am
Problems with the creationists’ “it’s so improbable” calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a “probability of abiogenesis” calculation in any meaningful way.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
LikeLike
March 21, 2011 at 11:56 am
Arthur,
I would not agree with this assessment, but it misses the point of the post anyway. Time is critical to any theory of the origin of life and/or evolution, and large-scale adjustments like this have serious affects on the plausibility of either theory.
Jason
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 5:14 pm
[…] in March I blogged about new research which called into question whether life has existed on this planet for 3.5 […]
LikeLike