New Organism dates life on land back to 2.2 Billion years ago.

[Threegoofs]

Well, the first organisms known aren't land organisms. Stromatolites predate these fossils by a half billion years, and Archaea probably existed a have billion years before that.

And ID is pretty much as much of a joke as creationism.

But thanks for playing,McFly.

 

[ecofarm]

That's a bit of a game changer if you ask me... What happens to the concept of the "primordial soup" when the first organisms known are now 2.2 billion years old and on land?? (assuming that 2.2 billion years ago that they are right on it existing on land)

What?

 

[BmanMcfly]

What?

Um... I thought I was pretty clear?? Especially re-reading it, again... If it helps, it's not everyday that there are scientific findings that require a re-writing of many textbooks in an area.

 

[ecofarm]

Um... I thought I was pretty clear?? Especially re-reading it, again... If it helps, it's not everyday that there are scientific findings that require a re-writing of many textbooks in an area.

You read it twice and still don't get your mistake? Do you not know anything about evolution?

for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

See especially: 3900–2500 Ma

That's a bit of a game changer if you ask me... What happens to the concept of the "primordial soup" when the first organisms known are now 2.2 billion years old and on land?? (assuming that 2.2 billion years ago that they are right on it existing on land)

?

 

[BmanMcfly]

You read it twice and still don't get your mistake? Do you not know anything about evolution?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

See especially: 3900–2500 Ma




?

Oh, my bad...

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's a bit of a game changer if you ask me... What happens to the concept of the "primordial soup" when the first organisms known are now 2.2 billion years old and on land?? (assuming that 2.2 billion years ago that they are right on it existing on land)

It's too bad how little information comes along with the find, but still amazing.

I don't get why this new find would make anybody change their opinions on evolution.

Creationists, it's only dogma that maintains your belief, don't read the bible quite so literally and you might get more out of it. The science has long ago made its case that you are wrong.

Evolutionists, don't be so cocky because you can't answer all the questions properly either. Combining efforts with the ID people might actually draw better answers, if open minds prevail on both sides.

I only bring that up because the issue was raised.

No, there are no facts that can be discovered ever that will make the creationists change their opinions of the theory of evolution. Their opinion, after all, is not based on facts.

As for answering all of the questions, you're right there, too. Our knowledge of evolution is, well, evolving. The story in the OP illustrates how, as more facts and discoveries come to light, the timeline changes, the details change. What doesn't change is that life evolved over billions of years.

 

[ecofarm]

Oh, my bad...

Well, that's not much fun. Aren't people supposed to deny mistakes to the bitter end?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Well, that's not much fun. Aren't people supposed to deny mistakes to the bitter end?

Well, contrary to popular beliefs, I am fallible. (plus, 1.5 billions years is a fairly significant error).

The only condition I ever have is that I be SHOWN wrong rather then told to be wrong, while I attempt to be as accurate possible.

 

[Green Balls]

If you make the average life of a human equal to 100 years, then we're looking at 22 million lifetimes back to back. You bet your sweet bippy some things have changed over a time frame like that. I doubt humans will still exist that far into the future, but it's nice to speculate what the human race will become.

 

[Un biased]

I wonder what the creationist think about the cavemen ?

 

[mbig]

I thought we were all descended from eels. I wish science would make up its mind. Facts shouldn't be such a moving target.

2. I am descended from Adam. People put a lot of faith in science, maybe too much seeing as how their knowledge is so inexact.

Judging by your post, eels may have been all to recent in your personal evolution.
Science has Vast Evidence of many types that evolution is true. What Evidence do you have of "Adam"?
Why is your creation MYTH better than the Hindu one?
It's scientific EVIDENCE that makes one 'belief' Better than another.
"Faith" is mere "faith" (ie, godS), while "belief" in science/sciences is a FACT-BASED.
They are Not a coin toss of equal evidentiary value.

You didn't 'descend' from Seaweed either, but we do Share a common ancestor.
Evolution isn't a single line, it is a Tree with branches, some that narrowed to twigs and ended, some still propagating/Evolving.

 

[Morrigi]

If you make the average life of a human equal to 100 years, then we're looking at 22 million lifetimes back to back. You bet your sweet bippy some things have changed over a time frame like that. I doubt humans will still exist that far into the future, but it's nice to speculate what the human race will become.

We'll either be about as humanlike as the thing in the OP or long lost in a storm of radioactive fire.

 

[rhinefire]

What did eels look like millions of years ago? Did they have hair?

 

[MoSurveyor]

What did eels look like millions of years ago? Did they have hair?

The ancestors of eels split from the ancestors of ray-finned fish a little over 200 million years ago. The ancestors of ray-finned fish split from our ancestral line over 400 million years ago.

 

[ZapFinch42]

Call me a softie but threads like this give me hope for humanity. Seeing people from so many different political backgrounds coming together and agreeing and supporting each other in the name of science.

It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.:mrgreen: