Life arose "200 million years ago"?!

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Post Reply
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:10 pm

Life arose "200 million years ago"?!

Post by Fromage » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:50 am

This website says that life couldn't have formed any earlier than 200 million years ago, but that sounds like a load of (really impossible) crap to me. ... nston.html

Is it just religious spin?

User avatar
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: MUMBAI / INDIA

Post by sachin » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:57 am

No its not any religious spin...

Just name is godandscience....

the site have evident of many scientific theories....

Its good...
Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India.

Bitter Truth!
Who says reason for world war III will be Petrol?
Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".

User avatar
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA; USA

Post by G-Do » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:41 am

The major reference that supports this assertion is the article by Rosing and Frei. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that at this time. You can try to nab it via an interlibrary loan (ask your local librarian).

My appraisal of the site:

The short version is, take it with a grain of salt.

The long version is:

1) He's promoting Jonathon Wells' book, which - the last time I checked - contains distortions that have yet to be corrected.
2) He doesn't seem to make any concessions to evolutionary biology at all. He also seems extremely sure of himself with regard to various denominational questions. When it comes to matters of religion, I follow an old adage: beware the man who is so confident of his beliefs that he has no use for faith.
3) I didn't browse the whole site, but: in the section called "Intentional Deception of Evolutionists" he claims that the people were being deceptive in claiming that the speciation of goatsbeards (which most likely resulted from polyploidy) represents an example of so-called macroevolution, because, in the author's own words: "No new information is created!" How this constitutes deception is never clearly explained; the disagreement probably has something to do with the fact that design theorists like models that invoke "information" and evolutionary biologists do not, but how this constitutes deception on the part of evolutionary biologists, I do not know. It seems very much like he wanted to write a "gotcha!" argument about the crew, and that's how he spun this goatsbeard example.

Anyway, it could be the case that the guy is reasonable, but unless you get to know him personally I'd be wary. I am especially fond of point #2 as a heuristic in judging whether it's worth it to argue with somebody - and that goes for Christians, atheists, and humans of all other metaphysical stripes.

Hope that helps.
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

User avatar
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by AstusAleator » Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:11 am

He's obviously well informed, and he put together the article well. I don't know about the 200 million year period, I guess I'd have to check out his sources.
If the book he's talking about is like he says, then i think he's justified in protesting it. However, high-school science texts do necessarily need to be simplified, since high-schoolers aren't going to know, or take the time to research, the theoretical background behind abiotic origins theories. It requires a good understanding of biochemistry.
The book could have been a bit more detailed on some point, but on others I think they were justified in simplifying their statements.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Darby » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:11 pm

The hypotheses being attacked are fairly easy targets, but the substitute assumptions are certainly well-supported either. It doesn't take much looking to find some contradictions to the concepts - the real question is, are the contradictions real issues, or is the current consensus okay with the this week's basic assertions?

Abiogenesis is a theoretical construct still very much in its infancy. Whatever's in a general high school textbook is going to be both dated and oversimplified - and also needs to satisfy a whole crop of reviewers for many different states. This book is just trying to make Creationism look comparable - but all of the criticisms are based upon aspects of the hypotheses that are testable, something that neither of the "these should also be discussed" hypotheses really aren't.

User avatar
Death Adder
Death Adder
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Chennai

Post by deostroll » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:46 am

Life could have originated even learlier than that. Try looking at the geological time. Life existed duirng the cambrian period (which is 540+ millions yrs ago). One of the characteristics of life duirng this age was predation...

Source: Discovery Channel.
PS: I happen to be a philosopher, rather than a true scientist...

Death Adder
Death Adder
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Re: Life arose "200 million years ago"?!

Post by narrowstaircase » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:37 pm

Fromage wrote:This website says that life couldn't have formed any earlier than 200 million years ago, but that sounds like a load of (really impossible) crap to me. ... nston.html

Is it just religious spin?

i think that you misread, hes talking about a window of opportunity for life to arise of 200 million years, not that life arose 200 million years ago.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests