Why Is There No Fossilized Evidence For First Life?

[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,

All this wacky back-and-forth could’ve been avoided if you just said no there’s no current scientists who are making any new breakthroughs in the field of abiogenesis. All that we have is old news.

 

[Jimmy]

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

Huh? I have no agenda. I’m sincerely inquiring if there is any new groundbreaking discoveries in the field of abiogenesis study. I thought my two questions in post #5 were pretty good actually until you went on a tangent. I don’t blame you because there are a lot of people here with ancient religious agendas.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

That is a ridiculous thing to ask. Akin to asking for a photo from the Last Supper, except that we have some evidence that abiogenesys may have happened.

Evidence would be sweet though.

And it is. It just happens that fossils are on the periphery of it.

Say, have you ever browsed talk-origins?

 

[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/

Why do you think the first life from non-life wouldn’t have been drawn to one another?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not life from abiogenesis though

Yes. There was no life and later there was life.

 

[Jimmy]

Yes. There was no life and later there was life.

Yup that’s what abiogenesis is

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup that’s what abiogenesis is

Good. You got what you asked for.

 

[Jimmy]

Good. You got what you asked for.

No I didn’t though. No one here talked about the theorized life that first arose from nonliving matter long before the prokaryotes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I didn’t though. No one here talked about the theorized life that first arose from nonliving matter long before the prokaryotes.

You did, but I cannot force you to understand how your request was met.

 

[Jimmy]

You did, but I cannot force you to understand how your request was met.

I feel ya

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

What would be fossilized? If by life we mean things that self replicate, the first forms of life would likely not be cellular, but simply molecules that self replicated. There would not be any fossils.

 

[Jimmy]

What would be fossilized? If by life we mean things that self replicate, the first forms of life would likely not be cellular, but simply molecules that self replicated. There would not be any fossils.

Right. I’m spitballing. Askin questions. Maybe learn something new. Maybe someone here will develop a new breakthrough. I asked if these simple molecules would’ve gravitated towards each other and left behind some sort of “larger” evidence. Just spitballing. No biggy

 

[Jimmy]

What would be fossilized? If by life we mean things that self replicate, the first forms of life would likely not be cellular, but simply molecules that self replicated. There would not be any fossils.

See post #3 haha

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are scientists working on new ideas or new things that we can look for to gain a little insight into abiogenesis?

Are you aware that abiogenesis is like its own field of study with plenty of scientists around the world doing research within the scope of that field?

Anyone breaking ground in this dead field?

Progress is made, yes.
It's not an easy field though and answers don't grow on trees.

If your complaint is that it isn't fully solved and understood... then tough luck. Science is hard.
Currently not having answers to questions doesn't mean there are no answers to be found or that the questions themselves are wrong.
It just means that there currently are answers missing. One can only do more work to try and find answers.

 

[LuisDantas]

Right. I’m spitballing. Askin questions. Maybe learn something new. Maybe someone here will develop a new breakthrough. I asked if these simple molecules would’ve gravitated towards each other and left behind some sort of “larger” evidence. Just spitballing. No biggy

In other words, you are not being serious. Got it.

In case you ever want to be serious, this is a good place to start.

Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life

Articles about abiogenesis (the origin of life) from the Talk.Origins Archive.

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Kfox]

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

Perhaps the cell has always existed.

 

[Jimmy]

Perhaps the cell has always existed.

There’s a thought. However, I think the world started around 1979 so this thread is for people who believe that the world has been around a long long time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you know if there any scientific papers or research on the questions that I asked?

Zircons from the Jack Hills in Oz are among the early life that has been found.

NASA Astrobiology

Jack Hills Zircons: New Information About Earth's Earliest Crust

astrobiology.nasa.gov

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Because self replicating molecules that are pre-cellular would leave no fossils.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

The non-living matter would have been subsumed in the process of becoming living. And the living matter most likely did not have internal or external structures that fossilized. Of course it is possible that some fossil remains did exist and have been lost over time or we just haven't found them and been able to accumulate the evidence to state that it is first life.

Then again, how would you know for sure if you'd found the first?

There are fossilized bacteria found in Australia that are over 3.5 billion years old. All we can say is that living things on the Earth are at least that old.