Pt. 5 - Genesis and Scientific Evidence

From: "Sharon"
To: Edward Babinski
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:55 PM
Subject: Genesis and Scientific Evidence

Ed,

Ed wrote: "Single-cells ruled for over a billion years."

You're forgetting that _+bacteria+_ (according to science) have been
around
somewhere in the area of 3.8 billion... what's this about a mere one
billion?"

Through all the past years arguing relentlessly against a young
earth... and
now, seeing how _3.5 billion years_ of a vacant earth... how absurd
that a
planet exposed to photosynthesis for 4 billion years, should _just sit
there_ if evolution is true. In scientific terms, the sheer amount of
time
is absurd in itself. Life should have proliferated at an astronomical
rate... 3 billion years ago!! (Not a mere 500 million years ago). This
throws a whole new monkey wrech in the theory of (non-theistic)
evolution.
Seriously... how could so many _complex_ organisms "explode" within
just a
matter of a few 100 million years, compared to bacteria and single
cells
(renown for micro-evolution), "set there" ... not 1 billion, 2
billion... 3
billion years!
Isnt that highly improbable?

After years arguing with YEC, now YOU (Ed) want to reduce it to the
age of
life, to _only_ one billion. No no... let's put that 2.5 billion right
back
in there... that's a whole lot of time, for an earth predispositioned
to
evolution, to just sit there under photosynthetic sunlight "doing
nothing".

I'd say it would take a miracle, that "nothing happened".


But maybe scientists believe in miracles.
When I put a loaf of bread out in the open, exposed to air and
sunlight ...
it will dry out... bacteria goes to work on it, of course. But nothing
like
when I put the bread off to itself IN THE DARK and out of sunlight.
Wahoo... mystery molds...

Growing Bacteria in Petri Dishes at Steve Spangler Science Cover the
Petri
dish with plastic wrap, use a piece of paper or tape to label the dish
with
the name of the item you tested. Place the plates in a warm dark ...
~ stevespanglerscience com/experiment/00000165

Bacteria are far more active without sunlight. Also.. the earth did
not need
a sun to sustain life. I don't care what kind of pre-cambrian mystery
creatures they found. I've seen one, the trilobite, which resembles a
creature that lived during the Cambrian (and beyond) there is an ocean
creature that is extant which looks very much like it. I saw one
washed up
on the beach in Norfolk / Virginia Beach, VA many years ago. Can't
remember
the name though...

Triloblog: Living Trilobites? Nov 4, 2007 ... Is there evidence of
trilobites surviving in modern times? ... Though outwardly appearing
to
resemble a trilobite, this animal is actually a ...
triloblog blogspot com/2007/11/living-trilobites.html

Does it matter? Were trilobites photosynthetic? Not likely.
There's eyeless shrimp that live around Hot Springs, and those
ecosystems
are independent from sunlight.

"....an ocean creature that is extant which looks very much like it. I
saw
one washed up on the beach in Norfolk / Virginia Beach, VA many years
ago.
Can't remember the name though..."

AFTER THEIR KIND.. After their kind... after their kind:

Mass Extinction - Trilobites
One of the earliest forms of life to develop a carapace or shell was
the
trilobite. This is an extinct form of life that resembled the modern
horseshoe crab ...
~ ybra.org/geology/trilobites.htm
* It was a horseshoe crab that washed up on the shore in Virginia. The
underside of it, is similar in ways with the trilobite.

--------------------

"...After their kind..."

is Genesis' way of saying "Common Ancestry".

I think so.

--------------------

Here is my only real question at present... one article stated that
Stromatolites (formed by activity of bacteria) on early rocks... well,
this
was interesting.

Pub Med is about as "peer reviewed" as you can find on the web, and no
sir -- Talk origins wouldn't be stupid enough to try arguing with
them,
since Pub Med is one of their own favorite sources for reference.
How are they absolutely certain that Stromatolites were formed by
"photosynthesizing bacteria"? That's what one book here, (a
non-scientist) -- a scientific journalist wrote. But when I see that
claim
being made, I call to mind "never reference materials that fail to be
peer
reviewed".

PUB MED: "...is likely to have worked in tandem with existing
non-photosynthetic organisms increasing the likelihood of stromatolite
formation. "

Is likely to have? That's sort of inconclusive ....and followed with a
statement on the existing non-photosynthetic organisms..."

You see, this is their proof there was a sun near the earth 4 billion
years
ago?

Light-Dependant Biostabilisation of Sediments by Stromatolite
Assemblages
David M. Paterson,1* Rebecca J. Aspden,1 Pieter T. Visscher,2 Mireille
Consalvey,3 Miriam S. Andres,4 Alan W. Decho,5 John Stolz,6 and R.
Pamela
Reid4
~ pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2526175

"This suggests that early biofilms formations which pre-dated the
evolution
of photosynthesis might be more transient and delicate than later
forms, in
keeping with the slow development of stability in the dark incubation
in the
present study. However, the metabolic process carried out by
non-photosynthetic bacteria may still have been influential on the
formation
of carbonates and evaporites [13], [23]–[26]. The advent of
photosynthesis
and the capacity of biofilms to produce organic molecules is likely to
have
worked in tandem with existing non-photosynthetic organisms increasing
the
likelihood of stromatolite formation. The role of the varied organic
molecules associated with biofilms, microbial mats and stromatolites
is
continuingly being investigated and expanded [18], [19]."

----------------

"Is likely to have? That's sort of inconclusive ....and followed with
a
statement on the existing non-photosynthetic organisms..."

Are they saying that in an extinct ecoysystem (dating back 4 and 3 and
2
billion years) there was no other possibility than photosynthesis
(exclusively from sunlight) for those bacteria to form stromatolites?

ROTFLMAO (thank you Lord Jesus):

"Discovery of green sulfur bacteria living near hydrothermal vents has
major
implications for where photosynthesis happens and where life may
reside
A team of researchers, including a photosynthesis expert from ASU, has
found
evidence of photosynthesis taking place deep within the Pacific Ocean.
The
team found a bacterium that is the first photosynthetic organism that
doesn’t
live off sunlight but from the dim light coming from hydrothermal
vents
nearly 2,400 meters (7,875 feet) deep in the ocean."
Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean Jun 21, 2005 ...
Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean ... One is what it
means
to life on Earth; the other is what it means about where to look ...
~ asu edu/feature/includes/summer05/readmore/photosyn.html


WHY THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION?

ASK "WHY". 3.5 billion years of bacteria and even single cell
organisms,
stagnating, doesn't feed the bulldog. It flies in the face of
evolution
theory itself. The planet should have been crawling with life, 3.5
billion
years ago.

EVOLUTION: When Did Photosynthesis Emerge on Earth? -- Des Marais ...
Life
began early in Earth's history, but it was the emergence of
photosynthesis
that allowed its proliferation across the planet, because it freed
life from
....
~ sciencemag org/cgi/content/summary/289/5485/1703

------------------

"Are they saying that in an extinct ecoysystem..."

1. Proof of Photosynthesis happening in deep ocean .. where sunlight
doesn't
reach. Yes... proof for it.
2. Pub Med verifies the non-photosynthetic process pre-dates the
photosynthetic.

Further, if you have a planet with no sunlight, it can proliferate an
entire
ecosystem that is independent of sunlight, including as Genesis says
(in one
translation) "tender grass" ... but they know, they speculate body
plans of
these earliest life forms, were so delicate they didn't leave many
fossils.
When sunlight was introduced, you can guarantee it killed off the
majority
of life forms that were in existence. That's how extinctions occur.
Some big
shift in the earth's atmosphere... change the entire fossil record.
Some of
those earliest life forms resemble nothing known in our photosynthetic
world. Of course they wouldn't.

Science doesn't know what they were. I think they were likely
non-photosynthetic plants... or organisms living around Earth's own
photosynthetic capacity. Early in Earth's geological record, the earth
was
molten rock -- volcanic activity was covering it, very much like
what's
going on around the Hot Springs deep in the ocean (where they
discovered at
least one bacteria that does photosynthesis, directly from the earth's
own
energy -- and not sunlight).

Perhaps those Hot Springs are just a small peep into earth's earliest
record
of how and when life began.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pt. 9 Louis Agassiz - Darwins Contemporary
    ... carried out by non-photosynthetic bacteria may still have been ... The advent of photosynthesis and the capacity of biofilms to ... major implications for where photosynthesis happens and where life may ... Pacific Ocean. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Photosynthesizing bacteria
    ... and are closer than any other bacteria to plant-style ... photosynthesis; it is believed that plants evolved directly from ... SuperOxide Dismutase and Catalase in all life today. ... geology, paleontology, geo-physics, medicine, aging and evolution as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Pt. 6 - Genesis and Scientific Evidence
    ... Stromatolites (formed by activity of bacteria) on early rocks... ... The advent of photosynthesis and the capacity of biofilms to ... major implications for where photosynthesis happens and where life may ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Photosynthesizing bacteria
    ... don't mock me for just discovering it. ... and are closer than any other bacteria to plant-style ... photosynthesis; it is believed that plants evolved directly from ... sudden rise in oxygen levels and that photosynthetic organisms were ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Trees of Life
    ... It seems to me that the first forms of life, by definition, had to be ... The only way they could get energy was either by photosynthesis ... As far as I can see, chemosynthesis is the more likely of the two as most ... the Theory of Evolution generally assumes that life ...
    (talk.origins)