Making the Case for The Bible w Scientific evidenc, The Bible = 21st century Science

Hi SoLoved,

Thanks for your post.

And lots of scientists don't have that doctrine. The nice thing about the scientific community in general is that it is broad and diverse. The scientific community AS A WHOLE is not trapped into a single mindset which precludes looking at all possibilities. Science is also a very competitive field. If there is a topic worth pursuing that one scientist does not pursue because of their doctrine, mindset, or prejudices, there will be many others who will take it up.

I've tried to explain this before, I'll try to do a better job this time. Science neither accepts nor rejects God. Science does not, cannot, address areas that are unprovable. Science is accurate, very accurate, when dealing in areas it's supposed to be. Done to beelionsth and beelionsth of a meter.

Please explain to me how science could be science and accept unprovable tenets. Who gets to decide which unprovable tenets get accepted? Besides you? Why not 10,000 Hindu deities? Why not the Buddha? Should we take a vote? I know that the conservative right is always ranting about 'moral relativism' as supposedly espoused by those leftist liberals. What you are proposing is 'scientific relativism', where there are no longer any absolute scientific truths.

All someone has to do is scientifically prove there is a God. And no one is stopping anyone from making that attempt. Again, science neither accepts nor rejects God. Nor does science attempt to define what art is, what makes a good novel, or define beauty. Science has well-defined boundaries in which it works and works well. It is not and has never been the be-all know-all source of truth. Science just deals with science. It seems to me that neutrality means to you that science is 'atheistic'. All it really means is that science does not have the 'tools', is not qualified, to have an opinion on the subject. Because science cannot define what beauty is DOES NOT mean that science says beauty doesn't exist, it means science has no ability to address the question 'What is beauty?'. Does that make sense to you?

Science works on physical evidence. When science has physical evidence of a phenomena that does not fit into a current model or theory, then science has to alter its models and theories (or come up with brand new models and theories) to accomodate that physical evidence. But science, again, only works with the physical. It does not work with the psychic, spiritual, aesthetic, or religious. That is not in the realm of science, and again, that is NOT a value judgement on any of those things. If there is real physical evidence of something, then it can be addressed by science.

You seem to be confusing personal views of people who happen to be scientists with actual science. Science does not say miracles are myths. Science says nothing about miracles. Some scientists may say that, stating their personal viewpoint. Unless they were planning an imminent career change, they would never publish that viewpoint in a scientific article. They may state their views in other venues (like for instance these posts), but those views mean nothing in the realm of science.

If a miracle has physical evidence associated with it, science has the tools to look at the physical evidence. Science may not have seen a meteor crash into the earth thouslions and thouslions of years ago, but it can look at the physical evidence of that meteor crash.

There is nothing stopping anyone from pursuing this proof. And that is the beauty of science having the boundaries it does. It simply goes where the evidence leads it.


OK, my turn. Einstein was a big proponent of 'thought experiments'. These were mental exercises where one would do an 'experiment' in their head that couldn't actually be performed in the real world. I have a thought experiment for you.

Let's assume you've just moved to Utopia, IL and science is just as you would like it to be. Please understand I mean no disrespect to your personal beliefs in the following.

1. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community prayer session two weeks ago, and though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks and a miracle has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome would you expect to have?

2. A group of people come to you and tell you that they were in a community meditation session two weeks ago, and though they all had type II diabetes, their blood sugar levels have been completely normal for the past two weeks and Buddha has cured them. How do you as a scientist look at this situation, verify this situation? What outcome would you expect to have?

3. An archeologist comes to you and tells you that he has just returned from a dig, where he discovered Babylonian clay tablets which were calendars, and there were literally thouslions of them, sequentially dated going back tens of thouslions of years. In fact, he's got them in his truck parked out back. He would like you to peer review the draft of the publication he's preparing on his find. What would be the gist of your review?

I know you can't give detailed answers, but this is a thought experiment, and it's not being devious. What I'm saying is you are proposing that science be different, but that 'difference' would make science a completely unworkable discipline. I'm trying to find out how it can have the differences you say it needs and still be science. That should be the point of your replies. And please don't duck the questions by saying something like you're not a qualified M.D. or archeologist. What I want to know is how the structure of the new science you're proposing would work in these situations.

Thanks again,
Bruce

P.S.

OK, assume an inability to comprehend the consequences of disbelief. Would you enlighten me please?

Grumpy,

I just read in another string that you live in Cary? I used to live down 64, across the 'pond' in bucolic Chatham County. Small world .....

Bruce

Soloved

Let me get this straight. You want us to write a book explaining everything about evolution, with charts and pictures, which you will then blithely dismiss since CSBS/ID don't have to do any work, since all you need is belief, no science involved??? And what's so dependable about a designer who can drop in at any time and change all the rules???(another question for you to ignore like my last post, to this point that is ten questions I have asked that you have not answered in the last two posts alone)

No, you cannot dispense with all the grunt work!!! This grunt work is the rock you build your science on. Without doing the grunt work your science is built on the shifting sands and is useless and invalid. Without the grunt work how will you show that design is responsible instead of evolutionary forces??? And, again, what is dependable about an outside force(designer) which can appear at any time to change all the rules??? Scientific endeavors become useless with such undependability and you will be reduced to sitting around waiting for a miracle to occur. Or is the designer under your control and you can reliably order a morale to occur??? Are you able to predict or control the changes your designer will make???

Modified sweat glands. Simple enough for you???

CSBS/ID is not a theory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. It can't be tested because the designer will drop by and change the outcome of the experiment, different people will get different results. Therefore, by definition, it is not science, it is hocus pocus. You have no way to show that ID has occurred(because you didn't do the grunt work), you can't make predictions(the designer is not under your control,or is he???) You are correct that it will lead in entirely new directions but none of them will be a science.

We are now up to 16 questions I have asked in my last two posts that you have yet to answer. You said you were unaware of any so I will keep track for you.

I've had to don my waders to slog through the yard full of crap in this post. It's all blather, probably quoted or paraphrased from the websites that excrete this manure by the barnful.The odor is making me dizzy and nauseated and I'm really not interested in trying to educate a hopeless child.

Grumpy

Hello Adoucette.

If I had more free time (which alas, I don’t) I would ALSO explain in detail to SoLoved the existence/function/benefits of the HERMAPHRODITE (self-fertilising, NOT cloning/dividing) reproductive system/strategy; as well as the SEX-CHANGE (female-to-male, especially in certain fish) reproductive strategy; both of which of course evolved early on in the piece. I would also have tried to point out that, since the organs/genes necessary to the existence/refinement of these sexual strategies/capabilities were ALSO converged-upon/perfected by the relevant organisms early on in the piece, the question as to when the ‘first human 'male/female’ arrived on the scene is a non-sequitur...as whatever pre-humans we evolved from HAD ALREADY EVOLVED THE NECESSARY MECHANISMS/STRUCTURES/STRATEGIES which, via the ensuing Natural Selection process, were ‘fixed’ as the most advantageous for that particular series of pre-anthropoid/anthropoid developments that led to the ‘first’ ‘true’ humans (male & female) and eventually to ‘modern’ humans.

In short, the male + female sexual structures/capabilities/strategy were there long before humans evolved to the 'Adam & Eve' stage (humorous allusion, SoLoved, NOT acceptance of 'bible' story, hehehe), and so was ‘inherited’ by the earliest mammalian life forms that ‘fixed’ on sexual reproductive strategies/organs as part of their survival ‘toolkit’ (which so far seems to have been the right evolutionary path for Natural Selection Process to ‘steer’ us onto, hehehe!).

Also it might be worth exploring how hermaphroditism and sex-changeism, and the ability/technology for modern human females to ‘clone’ themselves, sit with SoLoved's ‘bible-as-inerrant-science-reference-book’ view of things; since as far as I recall, none of these reproductive strategies were ‘scientifically’ treated by whoever wrote/rewrote that ‘book’ (then and since).

As I said, there are too many other calls on my time right now, which is why I am forced to impose on yours (but ONLY if you can spare the time yourself!); and in any case I could never be as thorough as you and some others in answering SoLoved’s request for info in this field (the physical sciences and technology are my forte; just as evolutionary biology seems to be most obviously yours! hehehe).

Would it be possible for you and others to follow up on these aspects for SoLoved’s sake, if not mine? Thanks in anticipation of what will doubtless be a most excellent treatment by yourself and others!


Best rushed regards from: RealityCheck.

HaHaHa......man, I couldn't hit the reply button fast enough after I read your last post Grumpy.....there were some great lines in that one - I'll have to remember them for my next highlights of the week post. Dang, you're good!

I have lots of people to respond to - I think I'll have to call in the National Evangelical Association of Intelligent Design Debaters - because I can only spend so much time on this forum, so many posts - so little time.

So, I guess I'll just have to choose - but I sure will try to get to as many as I can.
You guys have been asking way to many questions and haven't given enough answers. You usually duck the questions and respond with sarcasm. Especially my last post - yes I want to see you write a brief summary at least - and please - plain english - I'm not up on the hip lizards and so forth.

(note to birdan and steveo - sorry I haven't responded yet - I know I'm doing last in first out - but Grumpy is just way too funny)

Come on now, you know better than that. I know you kinda believe something - so I'm sure you'd welcome an unexpected visit from the designer.

Whattsa matter fella, hit a nerve?

Wrong. The evidence shows that He is very reliable. He placed the Earth at just the right distance from everything so that it works just right. Miracles occur when God wants them to occur, not necessarily when we do. Just for the record, I've waited for miracles before and have done just fine. Probably a coinkydink, I know. But there is definitely a lot of these coinkydinks in my life.

No, although the Bible does give us some pretty good clues about a lot of things. Can you predict what will happen to you tomorrow? Because you cannot, does that mean you don't exist, or that you cannot be explained scientifically? (well maybe that part is true - haha). But if you say that because we can't control these changes - then it means there is no God - then science is not science at all, but idealism. Idealism meaning that it has preconceived notions about how things should work - and because this system has worked so well for science so far, then it applies to everything - that's idealism.

Well, I guess we could agree to disagree. It seems that you have a hard time imagining how you could conduct science experiments on something you don't know. It can be tested - and will not necessarily change in midstream. God is much more consistent and dependable than you give Him credit for. Remember, the same stable universe that you rely on for your science is the same universe that God controls. Not bad so far, huh? You don't know whether any of the new directions will be a science or not.

No, it's not. Sweat comes out of sweat glands. Nutritious food comes from breast feeding. Maybe they look like modified sweat glands (breasts look like sweat glands? Eeew) - but that's just like saying that a star looks like a pretty white light.
No, you'll have to do better than that. The time frame in which breasts started to produce milk in the evolutionary tree would be helpful as well.

Hmmm, that's an interesting way to duck the questions. Besides, I'm not a hopeless child...I'm a happy, excited, curious, and joyful child of a loving, patient, and kind Heavenly Father.

Thank you in advance for the knowledgeable, thoughtful, Einsteinian response that I just know is forthcoming,

SoLoved

RealityCheck,

Thank you so much for your new and improved tone.

I also appreciate the content. I guess it makes sense from your point of view.

It would be nice if someone could explain exactly how this male female thing came to be - in other words why not just one sex.

More specifically....
Since humans do not share the DNA of the many organisms that can reproduce sexually as well as asexually - such as your examples of aphids, slime molds, sea anemones and many plants - then you'll will need to come up with a better example to describe how the human came to be - including thought, feeling, and other emotions, and even something as simple as breast feeding (the idea of evolution creating a natural system of feeding their young will not be so easiy explained, but please try). Again charts and pictures are always appreciated.

I'll look at your post more closely, but I did not immediately see an answer to the issue above.

Thanks,
SoLoved

With this ongoing discussion on reproduction evolution, I was reminded of a quote I once heard (I forget the source), which I give permission to SoLove to use as a respone:

"Sex is God's consolation prize for making us mortal."

Soloved

Not after evolution has modified them, then they produce milk.

Before the various species of mammal differentiated since they all(and only they) produce milk. The first mammals lived in the time of the dinosaurs some 70+ million years ago. They were small and rat like. This was the common ancestor for all the milk producers on Earth.

I believe in the laws of nature. There is no evidence of your designer.

No, you cannot do science without doing the grunt work. The grunt work is the rock you build your theories on, without it your theories disappear into the sand of irrelevance.

You evolved on a world that orbits its sun at the distance it does, so of course you evolved to fit the environment. If the environment had been different you would have evolved to fit that. There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water.

soloved, you understand nothing. Science has no preconceived notions about God or anything else. Science can predict the outcomes of experiments, unless your designer decides to change the rules, then all bets are off and we've entered la-la land. Idealism is a philosophy, science is a discipline, one cannot morph into the other. To say that science is idealism is babble.


CSBS/ID is not a theory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. It can't be tested because the designer will drop by and change the outcome of the experiment, different people will get different results. Therefore, by definition, it is not science, it is hocus pocus. You have no way to show that ID has occurred(because you didn't do the grunt work), you can't make predictions(the designer is not under your control,or is he???) You are correct that it will lead in entirely new directions but none of them will be a science.

This paragraph stands on it's own merit, it was true when I first posted it, it is true now, it will be true despite anything you say soloved. You are trying to sell snake oil and I'm not buying. You don't understand what science is, how it works or the hard work it takes. Since you are unwilling or unable to support your hypothesis with any evidence it is not a science and, at the present rate, it will never be.

Grumpy

Birdan, and evolutionists,

Amen, and so we shall.

Birdan,

1. Would you consider a medical doctor to be qualified to answer this question? If you do, then their answer
has always been that it is a miracle. You can verify that it is a miracle and conclude that they are the happy
recipients of a gift from above. You have evidence that they had diabetes, you saw it, you tested it and you believed
your tests. Then you saw and tested that they were free of diabetes, and although in shock, you believed that, too.
So now you have evidence for a miracle. You could test this by surveying everyone who has had a similar miracle
to see if there is a pattern. You would think that there would be a pattern, but I know already that this has
been done and no fascinating pattern seems to exist.
It is true that those who pray seem to have more miracles - but not by a big margin. The problem for the evolutionist
surfaces right here in this spot. The idealism of the evolutionist tells him that this is just a fluke of nature,
random chance...he does not allow for the possibility of a Designer - WHICH is what prevents him from advancing
the cause of science. If he took his evidence of diabetes, then no diabetes, then the fluke of nature and tried
to duplicate this - he just might have a measure of success. A completely workable discipline of science that is
testable and repeatable. But he will never know now, will he?

Question number two takes on a much more spiritual nature...but you asked, so...

2. This can be answered in pretty much the same way as the first question. Hopefully you saw my answer to GeneSplicer's question about
how I feel about other religions. I told him that Faith is a Journey...and a personal decision....and that God
holds people accountable for what they know. The person in most danger is the one who rejects God.
God loves everyone equally, whether they are a terrorist....non believer.....everything in between.....other religions.........or a Christian.
But like I said, prayer yields a slightly higher miracle quotient, but it is not the significant reason for the miracle.
I believe God and God alone is the significant reason for the miracle. He works everything for good.

3. If I was an archeologist, I would be one with a Christian view - I would have trouble with the tens of thousands of years.
When you say sequentially dated tens of thousands of years, I don't know of any such find that exists. But other than that - I would be as
excited as anyone to get a good look at them. As far as my review - I bet I would conclude that they are a great historical record
that will back up the Bible, as most archaeology has done. Certain ethic groups and religions will disagree, but
that's OK. To give him a peer review would require seeing his draft first, of course.
Just a side note - Believing in a young earth is not such a bad thing when it comes to all the archaelogical finds like
drawings and writings. The first one thousand years of life produced a lot of people that split off into
different groups, which in turn developed new ways of thinking, new laws, etc.


It's not new science at all - it's just a new way of thinking - you can still conduct your science in the same way - but
you'll have to be much more dilligent, persistent and open minded.

I hope this works for you. Thanks for the nice tone of your posts.

I like this game of 'thought experiments'. I could help you even further here if you or one of the evolutionists would put together a brief outline for the theory of evolution in a simple format - so that I could see exactly how y'all think in this forum - then perhaps I could put one together for either your first question, or for Intelligent Design. Since it would be on an equal footing, maybe they would understand ID better.

SoLoved

...on earth as it is in Heaven.

Grumpy, you must type 200 words a minute. Go to bed.

Hello SoLoved.


In answer to your question “...why not just one sex...”?

Please ‘Google’ or ‘Wikipedia’ the term “HERMAPHRODITE” across as many species as you have time for. Also ‘Google’ the phrase “FISH SEX CHANGE”.

Even such 'light' research should lead to the insight that, very very EARLY ON in the piece, there WERE species in which the DEFAULT OPTION was 'FEMALE' until environmental ‘triggers’ re-set/activated certain biochemical/biophysical pathways/structures to develop ADDITIONAL self-differentiating egg-/sperm-producing processes that gave the relevant organism the EXTRA ‘MALE’-ROLE OPTION (in the same, formerly ‘female’, individual!) which had evolved as LATENT component/capacity of the reproductive system in the various species in question.

Again, these ‘traits’ came in handy for handling certain environmental situations which might otherwise have ‘killed off’ those species; hence its retention in many cases due to the intermittent (but nonetheless crucial when required) advantage conferred by those traits/structures/strategies.

I hope that helps.


Now SoLoved. Since you appreciate my “...new and improved tone...” , for my part I would respectfully/cordially ask for, and would much appreciate, a “new and improved willingness” on your part to do some fair amount of research BEFORE putting questions which you may readily/initially answer for yourself to some efficacious degree by ‘Googling’ and/or ‘Wikipediaing’ the operative terms/phrases. This would be especially appreciated in threads such as THIS one, whose TITLE is:

.......... "Making the Case for The Bible w Scientific evidence"......

...meaning that it is up to the would-be case-maker (your ‘side’) to present the ‘evidence’ in the forum in which the ‘case’ is proposed to be made. I am not being unreasonable/unco-operative in any way when I observe that, although all here are generally happy to oblige, there is, strictly speaking, no obligation whatsover on our ‘side’ to answer any of your questions here, since it is NOT our ‘side’ trying to make the case in question; and therefore our main duty is to ( if we can, based on ‘scientific’ argument/evidence only) rebut hopefully equally-‘scientific’ arguments/‘evidence’ presented by your ‘side’ in support.

Again, this is not intended as criticism in any way; it is merely a polite reminder of the ‘general/scientific debating rules which must apply if the debate is to be fair, cordial and constructive on both sides.

Looking forward to debating you as and when the occasion arises, and time permits.

Regards from: RealityCheck.

Well different sexes took awhile to evolve. The first sexual reproduction was simply between ANY two members. Keep in mind that in normal cellular reproduction (mitosis) the chromosomes first double, they migrate to either side and then the cell splits. Thus each cell has a pair of chromosomes (diploid). Drop the doubling and you get a gamete cell (meiosis) with but one set of chromosomes (haploid). When two gametes meet (just floating around in the pond) they join to form a diploid cell and begin the process of creating a new member.

The initial advantage was that the original organisms (like hydra) were sessile and though they could reproduce by budding, this creates identical members, close by competition and limited range (not good if the pond water drops where you are), in contrast the floating gametes could meet up some distance away thus much more widely distributing the species and thus also increasing the species chance of survival. Sexual dimorphism took much longer to develop but if you think about it, it is also an evolutionary benefit to more social creatures, as each takes on a subset of parental roles.

I'll stick to breast feeding for this example as thought, feeling and emotions are all clearly evident in primates (you did see the recent videos shot of Gorillas making and using various tools?). (the following is taken from multiple sources and edited together to make it coherent)

While Darwin devised a plausible scenario for the evolution of breast feeding, new information later proved it false. Subsequently, biologists have proposed at least ten hypotheses, but none of them were entirely satisfactory, according to a recent review by National Zoo scientist Olav Oftedal. In two papers published in 2002 in the Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia, Oftedal offers a new scenario to explain, in his words, “How could such an intricate process, involving radical innovation in both mother and suckling young, come into being?”

It is no easy matter to trace the evolution of a structure like the mammary gland and a process like lactation because it does not fossilize. Through painstaking examination of fossils, paleontologists have been able to “see” progressively more mammal-like forms evolve by following gradual changes in teeth and bones.

No such luck with mammary glands and lactation. Instead, to develop his scenario, Oftedal had to review mammalian evolutionary history as revealed by changes in bones and teeth, as well as amass evidence on the nature and evolution of skin glands, the difference between the eggs of birds and reptiles and those of the few mammals that lay eggs, ecological changes over evolutionary time, embryonic development of mammary glands, the functions of scales, skin, and hair, and more. In addition, he looked for clues in parental care exhibited by various vertebrates.

While lactation occurs only in mammals today, lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive trait that predates the origin of mammals. The synapsid branch of the amniote tree that separated from other taxa in the Pennsylvanian (>310 million years ago) evolved a glandular rather than scaled integument. The ancestors of birds and some other groups solved this problem with the evolution of a hard, calcified egg shell, eventually the typical chicken egg. The synapsids appeared to have solved it by keeping the eggs in contact with skin kept moist by secretions from skin glands. Glandular skin was present in the ancestors of the amniotes and proved handy to meet this new need. And, it turns out that mammary glands are specialized skin glands, most similar to apocrine glands and both likely evolved from the same ancient gland type. Some apocrine glands make and secrete lipids and other complex organic molecules, and mammary glands also secrete lipids and the other complex organic components of milk.

How, though, did animals get from secreting a glandular substance to keep eggs moist to feeding their young the secretions of mammary glands?

The behavior of modern amphibians provides a clue to how this might have occurred. Some amphibians that nest in dry habitats carefully tend their eggs and may keep them moist through glandular secretions; glandular secretions may also provide protection from fungus and bacteria. Further, there are hints that the hatchlings of some caecilian species (legless amphibians) feed on their mother’s skin or skin gland secretions. As Oftedal says, “If verified, this remarkable discovery might provide a direct analogy for a transition from skin secretions as egg supplements to skin secretions as hatchling food.”

Closer to home than amphibians, however, are the monotremes—one species of platypus and two species of echidnas that are the only egg-laying mammals. And, of course, by definition, female monotremes lactate. The ancestors of the living monotremes split off very early on from those of the rest of the mammals, indicating that lactation had evolved before that split, which occurred about 150 million years ago. The modern monotremes are certainly not identical to the first ones, having evolved their own unique specializations. But they may reveal a link between the waterers and feeders.

Female platypus and echidnas lay eggs, which they incubate for about 12 days. When the young hatch, they feed on milk produced by the mother’s mammary glands. In a significant departure from all other mammals, however, the mammary glands do not open into a nipple from which young suck milk. Instead, the glands open in a hairy patch and the young suck the milk from the hair and skin.

During incubation, monotreme eggs are covered with a moist, sticky substance of unknown origin. Moreover, before they are laid, the eggs have three eggshell layers; afterwards, a fourth layer appears that is quite different from the earlier layers, and it seems to be applied to the egg surface in a fluid form. Thus, it is entirely possible that both the sticky substance and the fourth eggshell layer are secretions of the mammary glands.

This dual mammary gland function of coating the eggs and feeding young may also help explain why the monotremes lack nipples: secretions from a largish, flat patch might more easily coat an egg than secretions from the single point of a smallish nipple.

Repeated radiations of synapsids produced a gradual accrual of mammalian features. The mammary gland apparently derives from an ancestral apocrine-like gland that was associated with hair follicles. This association is retained by monotreme mammary glands and is evident as vestigial mammary hair during early ontogenetic development of marsupials. The dense cluster of mammo-pilo-sebaceous units that open onto a nipple-less mammary patch in monotremes may reflect a structure that evolved to provide moisture and other constituents to permeable eggs. Mammary patch secretions were coopted to provide nutrients to hatchlings, but some constituents including lactose may have been secreted by ancestral apocrine-like glands in early synapsids. Advanced Triassic therapsids, such as cynodonts, almost certainly secreted complex, nutrient-rich milk, allowing a progressive decline in egg size and an increasingly altricial state of the young at hatching. This is indicated by the very small body size, presence of epipubic bones, and limited tooth replacement in advanced cynodonts and early mammaliaforms. Nipples that arose from the mammary patch rendered mammary hairs obsolete, while placental structures have allowed lactation to be truncated in living eutherians.

Now aren't you glad you asked?


Arthur

Get a load of this......profound.....hot off the press...

On the PhysOrg Weblog page is this story dated today, 10/7/05:

NASA exobiology researchers confirmed Earth's oceans were once rich in sulfides that would prevent advanced life forms, such as fish and mammals, from thriving

A team of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, working with colleagues from Australia and the United Kingdom, analyzed the fossilized remains of photosynthetic pigments preserved in 1.6 billion-year-old rocks from the McArthur Basin in Northern Australia.

They found evidence of photosynthetic bacteria that require sulfides and sunlight to live. Known as purple and green sulfur bacteria because of their respective pigment colorations, these single-celled microbes can only live in environments where they simultaneously have access to sulfides and sunlight.

The researchers also found very low amounts of the fossilized remains of algae and oxygen-producing cyanobacteria. The relative scarcity of these organisms is due to poisoning by large amounts of sulfide.

"This work suggests Earth's oceans may have been hostile to animal and plant life until relatively recently," said Dr. Carl Pilcher, NASA's senior scientist for astrobiology. "If so, this would have profound implications for the evolution of modern life."

"The discovery of the fossilized pigments of purple sulfur bacteria is totally new and unexpected. Because they need fairly high intensity sunlight, it means the pink bacteria, along with their essential source of sulfide, close to the surface, perhaps as close as 20 to 40 meters," said Roger Summons, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of geobiology. "The sulfide would have come from bacteria that reduces sulfate carried into the oceans by the weathering of rocks."

"The McArthur Basin rocks were deposited over a very large area and over many millions of years, so it's likely they formed under water that was intermittently connected to or actually part of an ocean. In turn, this implies the ocean had an abundant and continuous supply of hydrogen sulfide and must have been quite toxic to any oxygen-breathing organisms," said team member Jochen Brocks. "In fact, for seven-eighths of Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, there was probably little oxygen in the oceans and certainly not enough to support oxygen-breathing marine animals."

This research continued the efforts of NASA and partner institutions to understand the early history of the Earth. Research results were published in the Oct. 6, 2005, edition of Nature magazine.

The research was conducted by a team working in Summons' laboratory. Team members include Jochen Brocks, formerly of Harvard and now at Australian National University; Gordon Love, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stephen Bowden, University of Aberdeen, Scotland; Graham Logan, Geoscience Australia; and Andrew Knoll, Harvard.

Source: NASA

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

See the story here: http://www.physorg.com/news7077.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give 3 cheers to PhysOrg for not hiding this nugget.

Source: NASA - Credible enough for y'all?


Glory, Glory Hallelujah,......Glory, Glory Hallelujah,........the truth is marching on!

(Just another factual statement) Score: 16 zip. (that's two touchdowns and two 2 point conversions in football talk)

An you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!
Praise the Lord! Amen

Joyful, joyful, we adore thee, God of glory, Lord of love

Please visit this link for a message:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/o/joyful.htm

SoLoved


I hope I didn't go overboard with the glee, but this is cause for major celebration.
Now just go sell all your textbooks on eBay before everybody finds out.

Actually this fits in just nicely with what we have been saying.

That's exactly what we would expect to find 1.6 Billion years ago.

You were expecting fish way back then?

Arthur

Well you can be sure they'll be getting to that next.

But that sure screws up the evolution time table now anyways, doesn't it?


Glory, Glory Hallelujah,......Glory, Glory Hallelujah,........the truth is marching on!

An you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!
Praise the Lord! Amen

Please visit this link for a message:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/o/joyful.htm

SoLoved


I hope I didn't go overboard with the glee, but this is cause for major celebration.
Now just go sell all your evolution textbooks on eBay before everybody finds out.