Why Is There No Fossilized Evidence For First Life?

[shunyadragon]

That molecules will not show up in the fossil record is not a "lack of evidence", but simply a cold fact.



How does it "fail" in the lab?



Evolution is not abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution.

Making such an elementary mistake tells us that we probably shouldn't even bother with your personal objections to either.

Ways to distinguish biological from non-biological origins do exist without fossils, but of course the more ancient the rocks and metamorphosis make it difficult to make the distinction. The following article describes some of these methods.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584918324973

Organic geochemical approaches to understanding early life​

Abstract​

Here we discuss the early geological record of preserved organic carbon and the criteria that must be applied to distinguish biological from non-biological origins. Sedimentary graphite, irrespective of its isotopic composition, does not constitute a reliable biosignature because the rocks in which it is found are generally metamorphosed to the point where convincing signs of life have been erased. Rather, multiple lines of evidence, including sedimentary textures, microfossils, large accumulations of organic matter and isotopic data for co-existing carbon, nitrogen and sulfur are required before biological origin can be convincingly demonstrated.

It is worth the read to understand the current research and discoveries of the possibilities of early life.

 

[shunyadragon]

That post has nothing to do with my questions in post #5

Yes it does read again. This post describes the earliest known organic deposits form the earliest known life, which is what you will find of the first life, You will not find fossils.

also see post #21 that describes contemporary research of defining Organic Carbon in ancient life.

What else do you expect? We can go on to the the earliest fossils of more complex primitive life Cyanobacteria not much younger that ancient chert deposits.

 

[Jimmy]

Yes it does read again. This post describes the earliest known organic deposits form the earliest known life, which is what you will find of the first life, You will not find fossils.

also see post #21that describes contemporary research of defining Organic Carbon in ancient life.

What else do you expect? We can go on to the the earliest fossils of more complex primitive life discovered dating to about 3.5 billion years old.

A simple no to my questions would’ve sufficed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When abiogenesis first occurred and life arose from non living matter there is no record. Why not?

Where and for what have you looked?

 

[shunyadragon]

A simple no to my questions would’ve sufficed.

Actually a simply no would not answer your question as worded, unless you assume there is no evidence in the first place for the fossil or remanent evidence of the earliest life,

Since you lack any baxkground in the science involved what was the purpose of your question? Was it simply to justify what you believe?

 

[Jimmy]

Actually a simply no would not answer your question as worded, unless you assume there is no evidence in the first place for the fossil or remanent evidence of the earliest life,

Since you lack any baxkground in the science involved what was the purpose of your question? Was it simply to justify what you believe?

The question wasn’t about first life evidence the question was about evidence of abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question wasn’t about first life evidence the question was about evidence of abiogenesis.

And the article gave that evidence. It even said that it was evidence of early life. His post answered this question of yours:

" one would think that there would be some sort of fossilized record if many of them were fossilized together no?"

 

[shunyadragon]

The question wasn’t about first life evidence the question was about evidence of abiogenesis.

The first life arose from abiogenesis. The evidence of Organic Carbon in ancient rock for the first molecules of pre-molecular life would be the same as the first life in the same locations life began The hydrothermal vents near the spreading zones of continental drift between 4 bllion and 3,5 billion years ago.

Your question: "That brings up an interesting point. Would all of the first lifeforms have been drawn to each other or no?"

Size of course is at the molecular level, RNA for the first pre-life. There is o meeting each other in abiotic reproduction of pre-life or the earliest primative life. Abiogenesis reproduction of the first RNA pre-life would not involve meting each other, neither would the abiotic reproduction of the earliest Cyanobacteria/

 

[Jimmy]

And the article gave that evidence. It even said that it was evidence of early life. His post answered this question of yours:

" one would think that there would be some sort of fossilized record if many of them were fossilized together no?"

Not life from abiogenesis though

 

[Jimmy]

The first life arose from abiogenesis. The evidence of Organic Carbon in ancient rock for the first molecules of pre-molecular life would be the same as the first life in the same locations life began The hydrothermal vents near the spreading zones of continental drift between 4 bllion and 3,5 billion years ago.

Your question: "That brings up an interesting point. Would all of the first lifeforms have been drawn to each other or no?"

Size of course is at the molecular level, RNA for the first pre-life. There is o meeting each other in abiotic reproduction of pre-life or the earliest primative life. Abiogenesis reproduction of the first RNA pre-life would not involve meting each other, neither would the abiotic reproduction of the earliest Cyanobacteria/

Still has nothing to do with my questions.

 

[shunyadragon]

The question wasn’t about first life evidence the question was about evidence of abiogenesis.

To add evidence of Organic Deposits of pre-life would be the same as the earliest forms of life. Pre-life would from Organic deposits around hydrothermal vents. re-life would have to rely on the nutrient rich environment and could not metabolize Organic sources of life,

 

[shunyadragon]

Still has nothing to do with my questions.

Than they were not honest questions, and your lack of knowledge of the science involved dimply results in a circular argument based on the intentional ignorance of science to justify your own belief. Nothing more nothing less.

Notice your opening title asked for the . . .

Fossilized Evidence For First Life​

That is what I described to you in the previous posts, which you said dd not answer your questions,

 

[Jimmy]

Than they were not honest questions, and your lack of knowledge of the science involved dimply results in a circular argument based on the intentional ignorance of science to justify your own belief. Nothing more nothing less.

Not quite. My questions were about evidence of AbioGenesis. You were just telling me about evidence of the first life which came after. It’s all good bro. It’s cool that science doesn’t have any evidence for abioGenesis. stop taking it so personal. Holy. I’m not looking to spread a circular argument to support my belief. Wow! I’m just sincerely asking questions about abiogenesis. Take it easy dude.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess the oldest fossilized molecules that we have found are of cyano bacteria 2.1 billion years ago. We have fossils of cyanobacteria 3.5 billion years ago, but that’s just the structural remnants with no molecules. Sucks we can’t find any other different structural fossils before that time though.

Actually, it doesn't "suck". It is barely of any importance.

I don't know why you want to sell fossils as such a necessary and decisive piece of evidence, but you are quite misguided if you believe that they are that.

 

[Jimmy]

Than they were not honest questions, and your lack of knowledge of the science involved dimply results in a circular argument based on the intentional ignorance of science to justify your own belief. Nothing more nothing less.

Notice your opening title asked for the . . .

Fossilized Evidence For First Life​

That is what I described to you in the previous posts, which you said dd not answer your questions,

Fossilized evidence of first life from abiogenesis. What aren’t you getting?

 

[Jimmy]

Actually, it doesn't "suck". It is barely of any importance.

I don't know why you want to sell fossils as such a necessary and decisive piece of evidence, but you are quite misguided if you believe that they are that.

Evidence would be sweet though.

 

[Jimmy]

Is there any evidence that points to life arising from non living matter? We know there isn’t fossils but is there anything else? Are scientists working on new ideas or new things that we can look for to gain a little insight into abiogenesis? Anyone breaking ground in this dead field?

Besides this old news?

 

[shunyadragon]

Fossilized evidence of first life from abiogenesis. What aren’t you getting?

Than they were not honest questions, and your lack of knowledge of the science involved dimply results in a circular argument based on the intentional ignorance of science to justify your own belief. Nothing more nothing less.

Notice your opening title asked for the . . .

Fossilized Evidence For First Life​

That is what I described to you in the previous posts, which you said dd not answer your questions,

 

[Jimmy]

Than they were not honest questions, and your lack of knowledge of the science involved dimply results in a circular argument based on the intentional ignorance of science to justify your own belief. Nothing more nothing less.

Notice your opening title asked for the . . .

Fossilized Evidence For First Life​

That is what I described to you in the previous posts, which you said dd not answer your questions,

Yup u got the title. But you disregarded the OP.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is there any evidence that points to life arising from non living matter? We know there isn’t fossils but is there anything else? Are scientists working on new ideas or new things that we can look for to gain a little insight into abiogenesis?

Besides this old news?
View attachment 98219

Is there any evidence that points to life arising from non living matter? We know there isn’t fossils but is there anything else? Are scientists working on new ideas or new things that we can look for to gain a little insight into abiogenesis? Anyone breaking ground in this dead field?

Besides this old news?
View attachment 98219

What is your point of all this based on an intentional ignorance of science on ancient religous agenda?