-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Is There No Fossilized Evidence For First Life?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Oh I just found the answer. Now I remember.
There's no fossilized evidence of abiogenesis because the process of life arising from non-living matter likely occurred at a molecular level, creating extremely small and fragile structures that wouldn't fossilize well, and happened so long ago that geological processes have largely erased any potential traces in the oldest rocks on Earth; essentially, the first life forms were too small and simple to leave behind recognizable fossils.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
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.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Question regarding this explanation.
Since they were too small and fragile one would think that there would be some sort of fossilized record if many of them were fossilized together no?
That brings up an interesting point. Would all of the first lifeforms have been drawn to each other or no?
Last edited:
Soft tissue does not fossilise.
The earliest life forms we know of were microscopic organisms (microbes) that left signals of their presence in rocks about 3.7 billion years old.
Early Life on Earth – Animal Origins.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Doesn't lack of hard evidence make any theory softer? And does being make softer often result in defaulting to being dogmatic, to compensate? Why is this current theory treated as dogma, while being soft on original claim evidence? This does not add up to the philosophy of science, but rather some form of political-religious dual standard.
On the other hand, even if we cannot show direct evidence, if a theory is sound enough, it should offer us a way to simulate this needed evidence in a lab. But that current theory fails there also, meaning the current theory has even deeper conceptual flaws.
This is not a question of Creationism verses Evolution, but a flawed Evolutionary theory that needs a major science update. Half baked theory needs to be placed in its proper perspective, or else the needed changes will be avoided by instituting a religious dogma that is not allowed to change.
Water has all the tricks needed to be central to a genuine model for life. The water and oil effect, alone, allows water to manhandle all large organic molecules, like DNA and protein, until they assume their needed water friendly shapes. Water is uniquely designed for the tasks of life. If we dehydrate bacteria all life ends. If add any other solvent it remain dead. If we add water life returns. We can take apart any cell, and as long as there is water, the organics pieces can be examined in their alive state. Take away water or add another solvent all bets are off.
Water can form four hydrogen bonds and each hydrogen bond is like a binary switch, that can move information. How do you think cells stay and act integrated? It is because the main leader; water, has its finger in every pie; folding and packing, and water can also self organize, thereby integrating all the pies that its fingers touch. If we take away water, not only does the integration of life stop, but also all the pies stop. Water offer a way to model life and evolution in one variable, that implies all the organic variables. Back box falls very short of a 3-D water model.
You asked an interesting Question that may be answered concerning what science has found. which would be what is found for the first known life. You asked for the the fossilized evidence for the first life which would not be abiogenesis as such.
The fossil evidence for the first life we presently have is the earliest deposits of organic carbon. Organic Carbon deposits from abiogenesis at the base of these deposits cannot be distinguished from the first life. All we can do is date the earliest Organic Carbon deposits.
Early Organic Carbon was deposited i Black Shales and thin facies in sedimentary chert and iron deposits.
According to current scientific understanding, the earliest known organic carbon deposit on Earth is found in 3.5 billion-year-old black chert formations in the Pilbara Craton, Western Australia, which are considered to contain well-preserved organic carbon residues likely derived from microbial life.
Key points about this discovery:
Location: The Pilbara Craton in Western Australia.
academic.oup.com
Earth formed ∼4.6 billion years ago. The oldest known organic matter is in iron-bearing sedimentary rocks of the Nuvvuagittuq supracrustal belt, Canada (4.28–3.77 Ga) and in metamorphic rocks of the Isua supracrustal belt, west Greenland (∼3.78 Ga) [12]. The oldest black shales with depositional ages of 3.5–3.2 Ga occur in ancient cratons, such as the Pilbara in western Australia and the Kaapvaal in South Africa [13]. The development of black shales after this time started to show a global distribution featured by high spatio-temporal continuity and diversity (Fig. 2) [6,14–20]. Ten sets of black shales were developed in the Pilbara Craton from 3.0 to 2.45 Ga [21]. Shales dated at ∼2.71 Ga were deposited in the Pilbara and Kaapvaal cratons,
The fossil evidence for the first life we presently have is the earliest deposits of organic carbon. Organic Carbon deposits from abiogenesis at the base of these deposits cannot be distinguished from the first life. All we can do is date the earliest Organic Carbon deposits.
Early Organic Carbon was deposited i Black Shales and thin facies in sedimentary chert and iron deposits.
According to current scientific understanding, the earliest known organic carbon deposit on Earth is found in 3.5 billion-year-old black chert formations in the Pilbara Craton, Western Australia, which are considered to contain well-preserved organic carbon residues likely derived from microbial life.
Key points about this discovery:
Location: The Pilbara Craton in Western Australia.
- Rock type: Black chert
- Age: Approximately 3.5 billion years old
Organic carbon cycling and black shale deposition: an Earth System Science perspective
Black shale depositions are valuable archives of interactions between different geological forcings.
Earth formed ∼4.6 billion years ago. The oldest known organic matter is in iron-bearing sedimentary rocks of the Nuvvuagittuq supracrustal belt, Canada (4.28–3.77 Ga) and in metamorphic rocks of the Isua supracrustal belt, west Greenland (∼3.78 Ga) [12]. The oldest black shales with depositional ages of 3.5–3.2 Ga occur in ancient cratons, such as the Pilbara in western Australia and the Kaapvaal in South Africa [13]. The development of black shales after this time started to show a global distribution featured by high spatio-temporal continuity and diversity (Fig. 2) [6,14–20]. Ten sets of black shales were developed in the Pilbara Craton from 3.0 to 2.45 Ga [21]. Shales dated at ∼2.71 Ga were deposited in the Pilbara and Kaapvaal cratons,
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, but since oxygen was likely a waste product of early life we can find signs of it in the sediments that were deposited. For example iron has more than one state of oxidation for the ions that it makes. Naturally you will see +2 where the atoms have lost two electrons. This is the form of oxidation that occurs without oxygen. Just to clarify things a bit for chemicals oxidation is just an act of an atom losing an electron or electrons. It got that name because oxygen strips electrons away from metals quite easily. So any loss of electrons is called oxidation. If oxygen is present iron will lose another electron and become Fe +3. And here is the important part. Fe +2 is soluble in water. Fe +3 is not. The oceans used to have a lot of Fe +2 in it. As oxygen was produced it further oxidized the iron and it came out of solution. That formed what became beds of iron ore Those deposits are called "red beds" due to the iron oxide or rust that gives them a reddish hue. We first see red beds at 2.3 billion years ago, but there are signs of it even before that.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Do you know if there any scientific papers or research on the questions that I asked?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
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.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Why are you asking purely scientific questions on a religious forum when there are plenty of science forums out there that would be much better sources for answers (assuming you want the real answers)?
See post #8. I am concerned as to how you accept scientific research and discoveries in general for evolution and abiogenesis, and more specificaly how the fossil and related evidence concerning early life and abiogenesis.
Note: Evolution and abiogenesis is considered environment driven. The evidence indicates life first formed in and around the hydrothermal vents associated with continental spreading zones after they began to form when Continental Drift and early oceans formed with an environment suitable for abiogenesis and early life to evolve.
Last edited:
This is not strictly a religious form only. In fact questions concerning science alone, science and religious issues, and religious issues only are part of the basic foundation of this forum.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
I was just wondering if there was any discoveries found about the questions that I asked in post #5 or if they are looking for such evidence.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Well, let's not forget, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We also don't have any evidence on the existence of extraterrestrial life forms (that can be corroborated - at least that I know of, anyways), but one thing I envision is the ability to someday observe, on some other planets, satellites (as in a moon), or yet to be discovered type of astronomical bodies going through the process of spawning new life forms on it, and that may give us insight on how life began here on Earth. Maybe that ability will involve sending unmanned probes to other solar systems - IDK & the technique involved is not that important; maybe soon we'll find a solution, and we'll be adding another capability to the list of capabilities that we once thought practically couldn't be achieved, such as heavier-than-air flying, manned mission to the moon, etc.
We also don't have any evidence on the existence of extraterrestrial life forms (that can be corroborated - at least that I know of, anyways), but one thing I envision is the ability to someday observe, on some other planets, satellites (as in a moon), or yet to be discovered type of astronomical bodies going through the process of spawning new life forms on it, and that may give us insight on how life began here on Earth. Maybe that ability will involve sending unmanned probes to other solar systems - IDK & the technique involved is not that important; maybe soon we'll find a solution, and we'll be adding another capability to the list of capabilities that we once thought practically couldn't be achieved, such as heavier-than-air flying, manned mission to the moon, etc.
ChatwithGod
ChatwithGod.ai
Fossils of the very first life forms are rare because they were likely simple, microscopic organisms without hard parts that easily fossilize. In Genesis, we read about the creation of life, emphasizing the mystery and wonder of its origins.
Abiogenesis is neither a theory nor dogma. It's a tentative hypothesis.
The conceptual flaw is yours in thinking that nature ought to give you what you demand of it. Scientists are constrained to work with the evidence they have, not the evidence that you or they would prefer to have.
Science has determined that water (hydrogen and oxygen) plays a key role in abiogenesis and life. And carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur. And an energy source like the sun or a hydrothermal vent.
Last edited:
Again see post #8
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
That post has nothing to do with my questions in post #5