Why do people deny evolution?

You had links that do not display, in your post.

Sheesh

     If we take the standard definition of abiogenesis - Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds - it becomes evident that the very interpretation of the term of abiogenesis needs a lot of faith in order to prevent it from total collapse-on-arrival.
     Can you give an example of any abiogenesis happening ouside the biosphere of the Earth - if it is stochastic process, as the theory claims, it should have some standard function of distribution in space and time? Where is that distribution? Where are the cases of abiogenesis in the other parts of the Universe? Where is the abiogenesis symmetrical to the abiogenesis on the Earth that should have happened and should exist according to the quantum theory - the process of life formation here, if observed on the one part of the Universe, should be observed on the other side of the Universe as well? Where are they (the other ILSs) - where are we?

sorry for that, but I had tested them.






(This is no time to bite the bullet with our compatible organisational paradigm shifts.)

This has happened to me as well, it seems that tested links, that make our point, sometimes get corrupted, by an unknown ignorant influence, if you get my drift..

I do, I do

But it is a good thing, showing how desperate they are!




(We're going forward with our plans to implement interactive transitional time-phases.)

I have been looking into the problem of the very early appearance of photosynthesis implied by a recent discovery of graphite rocks found to be biogenic (of photosynthetic origin) in Western Greenland. The graphite was dated 3.7 billion-year-old.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/full/ngeo2025.html

Scientists used to think that earth spent its first half a billion years (4.5-4 Ga) drenched in magma, the surface cooling down some 3.9 Ga yr ago. This was believed to be the reason why we couldn't find older rocks than 3.9 bl ago: none existed.

The geological period we're talking about is the Hadean, from Hades, god of the underworld, in reference to the hellish conditions on Earth at the time. The geologist Preston Cloud coined the term in 1972, originally to label the period before the earliest-known rocks on Earth.

A molten lava earth until 4 bl yr ago would make the appearance of photosynthesis in 3.7 bl yr ago--only 300 ml yr later--nothing short of miraculous.

But it turns out the surface of earth may have cooled quicker, in only about 100 ml yrs, with oceans and the opportunity for life to form much earlier than 3.9 bl ago. It's called the 'cool early earth' hypothesis. 'Cool' is relative here, earth was hugely active seismically and quite hot, but with a solid crust and some oceans, in this theory, rather than just molten lava all around.

It all started when Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts were dated through isotopic ratios. The data implied that most impact melts occurred in a rather narrow interval of time, around 3.9 billion yr ago... If that is true, almost all the craters on the moon would have the same age... Thus indicating a short period of intense bombardment. It was dubbed "the lunar cataclysm" at the times, and was controversial.

Still is. Some researchers argue that the apparent clustering of impact melt ages near this time is an artifact of sampling, but lunar meteorites found on earth have yielded similar melt age data...

The hypothesis is now called the Late Heavy Bombardment: an event thought to have occurred approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago, spanning the Hadean and Archean limit. During this interval, a large number of asteroids apparently collided with the early terrestrial planets in the inner solar system (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars).

Some think that the similar age of the oldest surviving rocks and the "late heavy bombardment" is not coincidental. A period of intense meteorite bombardment in the period 4.1-3.8 Ga (giga-year) may have pulverized all rocks at the Earth's surface during the period. Sounds plausible, given the face of the moon...

If this turns out true, the LHB is the reason why we don't have older rocks. And therefore, there COULD have been a cool early earth before the LHB, and a few more hundreds of millions of years of evolution of proto-life, into life, and then photosynthetic life during the Hadean.

Calculations of earth accretion models have shown that the surface should have cooled in about 100 ml years... consistent with this hypothesis.

The apparent 'miracle' of early photosynthesis is explained? (or sort of...)

I wonder what FM thinks of that.

Nothing in your post, even hints at the source of the first photosynthesis though the timeframe indicated, if real, shows just how little we really know about the speck in the universe, that we call home.

Why go through all that boring brain work when you can just throw a blanket over it all, proclaim it a divine mystery and say, "Goddidit! Ta-daaa!"

I can't explain the appearance of photosynthesis, this is a given, but twice more time for the spark of life to happen makes the odds better. 600 ml years seems to me a more reasonable period for the long series of odd chemical things needed for life to happen. Only 60 ml yr separate us from the dinos.

Have you seen this? It's recent: http://www.livescience.com/49049-beginning-of-life-experiment.html

Back to the OP, why do people deny the Holy Ghost? Here's evidence that is in no way faked at all:

Good summary Olivier. Ive been speaking of these units (the Isua and the Flinders and one or two others) more referring to the proximity of several geologic provinces that contain these units during a time of earlier continental collisions. We have at least 2 collisional events prior to the Gondwanan and these may be preceeded by others but these earlier priods may have been "self healing" due to an abundance of plate "hot spots".

The Greenland Formations (The ISua) are in rocks that are of a mixed breccias of oxygenated nd reducing environments and some teeny pockets of oxidized pre-sediments, indicating that photosynthesis, as a transformative process had seen its beginning in that 3.7 By age. (Yet all we see of these several locations are rocks containing C12/C13 that is >>1 , whereas , in most Hadean rocks , where Chondrites and other non biogenic carbonaceous rocks occur, these rocks show a C12/C13 <<0.1.That shows us that C12 , preferred by living cells was not being preferentially deposited.
MAYBE tht had nothing to do with a sequential appearance of cyanobacters but of a "lag time" between when photosynthesis first appears and whenC12 Carbontes and Oxides and other Oxygenated rocks started to appear in overall abundance.
DAve Catling , in 2001 came up with a hypothesis that during the earliest periods, Oxygen was more being sequestered because FREE HYDROGEN was interfereing with higher Fe oxides like Limonite or Magnetite. In other words, life was kick starting itself maybe with no real time lag between earliest Archean Aged photosynthesizers (3.6-3.7 BY) to the earliest Proterozoic to the Lte neoArchean (2.8 to 2.4 BY). Life was chugging along with photosynthesis in its bag of tricks. Its just that the planet had to WAIT for a way for the extreme excess Hydrogen to be lost into outer space and then free oxygen began to accumulate in higher ND HIGHER NUMBERS .mOST IN DUE, PRIMARILY TO PHOTOSYNTHETIC PROCESSES THAT WERE ALREADY IN PLACE MUCH EARLIER THAN QE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.

Its an important time line for guys like me because many of the key economic deposits I help exploit, are based upon heavy Oxygenated pre mineralization. Stuff like Titanium ouls only form in the presence of a higher Fe Oxide matrix, otherwise it forms into low value deposits of silicates. "Idiot" deposits of and based Ti is asily gotten along beaches of black sands but real deposits of specific Ti rich oxide bedrock needs to be hunted down in the 2.7 to 2.4 BY aged rocks.

That's why I hve a paleontology group in my company, they most often produce results much more valuable than just using "Random Drilling"
I guess Ive not added anything to an understanding of when photosynthesis grew, instead I think, with Catlins work, weve removed the smug all knowing geologist opinion that said:
"well we know that Oxygen GREW from here on because of the gradua appearance of cyanobacter...:
Our research always shows that stuff is more complex than we originally thought. It seems that oxygen production was always on an upswing, its just that, in the Early Archeozoic, it was being hemically outcompeted by Hydrogen
Now another event of O2 Depletion occurred during the "Ice ball" Earth priod called the CRYOGENIAN (850-640 mya). But that has a far more easily understood P-chem basis than the whole ARCHEOZOIC time line.

PS, I started out chemist so I distinctly feel more satisfies with Catlins explanation than some of the "Rise of photosynthesis s a udden appearance.

I can explain the appearance of photosynthesis, as photosynthesis is logical, it allows for the creation of O2 and sugar, from sunlight. How you ask? well it is merely the product of an intelligent computer program, not all that different than the photo cells, that take sunlight and create electricity on the planet Mars now. Thus photosynthesis is logical, and we now use photosynthesis to produce electricity. Oddly enough, since our brains and hearts also depend upon electricity, then photosynthesis here on the Earth also produces electricity, as we are 100 percent dependent upon a food chain that begins with sunlight......

Just think

At some point you gona have to drop the hardware metaphor, kid. It's becoming repetitive. And it does not provide a very good explanation either: You can of course assume an intelligent creator for life and photosynthesis, but what created your creator? Was he produced by abiogenesis, or by another creator? Infinite regress... or some abiogenesis sometime, somehow. Or an eternal, non created god?

If you have to weave in God and evolution, the best approach IMFO (in my French opinion) is Theilard de Chardin's: God is as much the RESULT of evolution as its origin. It is still grandiose metaphysics but at least it sort of fits the paleontologic record.

That's interesting. Indeed the LHB could have something to do with life emergence on earth. Eg through high energy impacts leading to some pro-nucleotides as hypothesized here, or through direct injection of RNA of spacial origin (you posted an article earlier on showing RNA would survive entry in the atmosphere), or even more radically, through direct injection of biological material (panspermia).

You mean, photosynthesis would be constitutive of early life? Perhaps, in one way or another... The capacity to build live matter through reduction of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen is constitutive of early life, but there were other possible reactions eg sulphur based or iron based.

Harvesting light requires a lot of well aligned stuff... The DNA in chromoplasts is 10 times longer than on mitochondria, ergo by this measure photosynthesis is 10 times more complex than respiration.

Sorry, chloroplasts.

yes but the origin of a proto photosynthetic prokaryotic cell requires only a presence of ionic alkali earths.
Catlins hypothesis is gaining traction wrt actual data in mid Archean sedimentary units.

His hypothesis is over 10 years old nd has been mostly ignored till several AGU papers were published in the last year or more that back up spmeof the geochem exactly in regards to surface chemistry of Phosphides and acid sulfides

Most of the guys dealing with these "oorigins of life" stuff talk of a"pre nucleic acid world"

Actually, the ignorant influence is known. You just want to deny it.

People who deny it can't help themselves. They are unintentionally brainwashed to believe in God, his goodness, mercy, forgiveness, magic, after life, healing power, way of life. Illusion, of course, but real to the God believers.