Evolution and Creationism

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Oct 13 2004, 10:21 AM


Caught you off guard didn't. Whats up with all the exuses for answering the questions? I cell can only survive if it is a full cell. If it is missing any parts, than it will not survive at all. No matter what "form" a cell would be, they are all extremely complex. Life requires complexity.

I guess you forgot about a handy little cell in plant phloem called a sieve-tube. No nucleus yet it manages to live and funtion .

[Portuguese Rebel]

Caught you off guard didn't.

Huh? How do you reckon that? I've been debating this for years now. You really think anything you said was new to me?

I cell can only survive if it is a full cell. If it is missing any parts, than it will not survive at all.

Define "complete" cell. Different types of cell have different components. What do you think an incomplete cell is?

I guess you forgot about a handy little cell in plant phloem called a sieve-tube. No nucleus yet it manages to live and funtion .

There is a similar example in us. Our red blood cells also do not have a nucleus.

But like i said before, nobody said a complete modern cell was formed randomly. Modern hypothesys favour auto-replicant molecules of RNA in close association with certain silicates (the kind clay is made from) where the necessary enzimes could have been condensed.

But we have no way of finding out if this was the case since the more modern and fit microorganisms have completely wiped out any trace of those predictably ineffective first beings.

Life requires complexity.

I think the most evolved virus would disagree with you if they could debate in this thread :p

No new variation had to be produced. Adam and Eve had a certain set of genes, and when they reproduced the genes intermingled, and some mutated, resulting in some traits of Abe, being dominant from Adam, some being dominant from Eve, some being a little of both, and some being of neither, but just slight neutral mutations.

So... no new variations had to be produced, yet some mutated after Adam and Eve (causing new variations to gene pairs)? You read that again and tell me if what you wrote makes sense.

And these traits are all part of the individuals genetic layout.

Yet how do explain the previous mutations when a non previously existant gene was passed to the offspring. These were not part of the individual genetic layout, these were new variations.

So therefore, this creates new variation, and the system gets extremely complex as it progresses.

Huh? Little dude you sound like an evolutionist ... :devil

And you contradicted yourself too. If you keep that up i don't even have to post replies since you will debunk your own arguments.

Evolution works on genetic mutation, not genetic variation.

Actually evolution works on genetic mutations that have a fenotypical correspondence (meaning that the mutation was not silent) although most of the times neutral mutations lead to a later selectable fenotype.

herefore someone with a respiratory mutation will have possibly inferior and/or damaged lungs. But they will still be lungs, not gills, because a gill and a lung are to completely different organs which serve 2 different purposes, and are constituted for certain envirements, one water, one air.

I have answered this before but you guys tend to forget answers and just re-do the same mistake over and over and over.



The little fishy above has luns and gills and belongs to a group whose ancestors are thought to have been of great importance in colonizing swamps and humid places in primitive Earth. As you can see there is nothing wrong with the little fellow. You guys keep wanting organs that are formed from nothing in it's complete and functional form. Sorry that is not how it goes. It's better to have a defective eye (like many animal groups still do) than no eye at all. It's better to have very primitive gills (which are a very advanced organ) than no gills at all. It's better to have feathers, because they can keep you warm, than no feathers at all. It's better to have crude wings for small leaps than no wings at all.

Becuase if there weren't than I would expect life to exist everywhere.

There are very few places on this planet where there are no life and most are men created. Living beings are often only limited to certain physical limits connected to water (such as water's fusion and boiling points) although some even manage to fool these. Archeobacteria for example can even live above water's boiling point. The record of resistance is at 130ºC and some spores resist to 180ºC temperatures.

The conditions which limit life are connected to the limitations set by the evolutionary history. If we were based on amonia instead of water for example, our tolerance to temprature would be completely different.

It is of my belief that life has to have certain conditions to be in existence. It might not have to be oxygen, or carbon dioxide, but there are strict guidelines.

Of course there are, some of which i explained above. But i also have to say that these guidelines may not work for extra-terrestrial life if there is such a thing. How would a being with Silicium on it's base instead of carbon react to the enviroment? Who knows... Would we recognize it as being alive?

[Syron]

This is an easily refutable argument. This does not provide any evidence for evolution at all. The hair on our bodies does tighten to try to preserve heat. It is a natural body function even though it does not work as well as it does in other mammals.

Hair has to do with genetics, Hairs sole purpose is to preserve heat. But some people have little hair, and some have alot. This just depends on the genetic layout of a parent or parents. Like, my dad has a lot of hair, so I might be designed to have alot of hair as well, and so on through generation.

In fact our hair can grow just as long as other primate hair, adding to the point that we are a primate. This can happen when someone is especially thin, the body focuses activity in producing more hair to compensate for the loss of insulation due to fat. We having less hair is simply a mechanism developed over time that our bodies developed to save on wasting energy on a pointless activity. Most people can at least in some way can control their local environment (blankets at least!) to ensure that they are not cold and also we have other mechanisms by which we can keep warm that in the long run will save energy as they are only used when needed such as shivering, making in most cases long body hair obsolete. (Funny…..you are starting to sound more evolutionary with your latter comments! :p )

And different races losing hair is no evidence of evolution of any kind either. It just suggests that the isolated populace of a species became "less hair dominant" through breeding over the generation, and also, hair falls out, or is shed when it is no longer needed, like a dog shedding its winter coat. Some of you evolutionists claim that we humans lost our hair as we lived in warmer climates. I tell you this cannot be. Genetics doesn't allow for a species to drop a fur coat forever. Genetics show that whatever is programed into us at birth will never change, and any accumulated physical trait aquired over the lifespan of an animal will never make its way into its offspring due to the fact that it is not in its genetic code. Just as dogs which live in the bahamas develope a winter coat even though it is uneeded. So, this theory is quite absurd. If we evolved from fur coated animals, than all babies would be born with, or develope a fur coat at some point in early child hood, but instead, babies and young children have very little hair.

Aahh……Lamarckism again, when will it die! You are arguing against Lamarckism NOT evolution. Don’t confuse the two.

Lamarckism is where for example you say that a giraffe got it’s long neck from stretching to reach the tall branches, the stretched neck being passed on……………….THIS IS WRONG!

Evolution in terms of body hair would apply by saying that those in warmer climates would over time have more probability of surviving in the conditions. Therefore those with the genetic variation/mutation that meant they had less hair would overtime provide the most “breeding stock” as they are the ones who survive. (this is what is meant by survival of the fittest, it does not mean survival of literally the fittest necessarily, it means the survival of the best adapted). As most of the “breeding stock” would have less hair then the majority of the next generation would too and so on until almost all have shorter hair. Oh and btw while it is rare some people still do develop long fur/hair.

Let tell you why different races exist, and why it is not evidence for evolution:

SOME evolutionists try to put the existence of different races forward as evidence for evolution. In fact, this claim is more frequently expressed by amateur evolutionists who have a less than sufficient knowledge of the theory they defend.

The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features have emerged?"

Actually, I have never heard so much bull in my life, scientists don’t try and back up evolution by attacking religion, they do it by studying the facts, sorry but your religion isn’t that important. Evolution isn’t “fighting” the religious point of view, as there is no evidence for the Adam and Eve fairytale it so it can’t! Evolution bases itself on what can be studied.

In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.

This is so funny; you have shown yourself to have such a basic knowledge of science that I find it hilarious you can actually say that. I and many of those talking to you know more about genetics and variation than you ever will, in fact I will comment on some of the things you shown yourself not to know later………

The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature.

Two genes? No, they are Alleles, expressions of a single gene, it is an important difference. I don't know why you keep going on about these as they concern mutations in regions of DNA that would not provide many harmful or bebeficial effects and so would not be directly linked to evolution but mutation does occur in other regions as well. Anyway who are you trying to teach? The people here know more than you do about biology.

This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races.

However, this long period did not change one thing, of course. No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.

You are starting to confuse alleles with genes again. Actually this process doesn’t apply to all physical characteristics, only to the ones that don’t really affect one’s ability to survive. We have many of the pointless mutations still stored within our DNA that essentially are neither really useful or harmful, and depending on the alleles they will reappear in later generations with some due to their highly recessive nature perhaps almost fading away (such as red-headedness). Not every gene is expressed through variation; they are all interconnected, as there are genes for every different process. A gene doesn’t magically give you green eyes! It allows a chain of chemical reactions that create the green tint of your iris. Some also rely on other genes being present. Actually let me point this out better, genetically speaking you share half of your entire DNA with a banana plant! I doubt I’d see you growing a bunch of bananas would I! Your concept of genes is very basic.

It is not certain that any of the “races” will speciate as such and remember that humans have only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, really short in evolutionary terms. Considering the expansion of humans out of Africa to many different environments that our bodies seemed to cope with would show that there was little pressure to speciate, that by no means means that it could not happen in the (very distant) future different ethnic groups are far from developing into different species yet. What we see as different races is a lot do with variation but simultaneously some genes are being mutated that create different proteins.

Now, granted saying that different “races” are DIRECT evidence of evolution is wrong, but I doubt any scientist has actually said this I would like it if you could provide more than anecdotal evidence of this. The idea however is not however against scientific theory, why? Well that’s because groups that have similar variation will have a similar regions of DNA present (which is why you can identify the ethnic group of a person from their DNA as they will share regions that are very similar). This mean that if a mutation was to occur then, probability wise it is more likely that someone of the same ethnic background will develop the same mutation, hence when finally the time comes when a species is so genetically different they cannot produce fertile offspring then it is more likely that the one’s that will speciate will be the one’s that share similar DNA regions (ie those of the same “race”)

Another arguement for debate sake:

In the time of darwin, little was known about the complexity of a cell, and nothing hardly at all was known about DNA, RNA and every other genetic code. The cell, the earths simplest, yet extremely complex, lifeform, could absolutely not have developed randomly from any mix of non-living chemicals. Some compare the layout and complexity of a cell to that of a large city. This could not have just "formed" from inanimate matter. Life only comes from life. There have only been 3 cases of life coming from non-life:

Frosty the Snowman
Pinochio
Frankenstein

Yeah, real credible eh?  To claim that a cell could just form naturally, is just as unthinking to claim that a 747 Jumbo Jet could form naturally by a tornado. Both are impossible, because both require intelligence to design, and/or create. And one last thing, if our bright scientists of today cannot create a living cell, what makes you think that one can form naturally?

And:

Caught you off guard didn't. Whats up with all the exuses for answering the questions? I cell can only survive if it is a full cell. If it is missing any parts, than it will not survive at all. No matter what "form" a cell would be, they are all extremely complex. Life requires complexity.

What cell would that be they are all different! In fact Prokaryotes are extremely simple, they lack practically all the structure that you say the cell must have. All the material in a Prokaryote are “self assembly” molecules, ones that order themselves because of physical laws, a good example the cell membrane:

This is made of phospholipids, a not very noteworthy molecule but is does have one good trait, it is bi-polar, one end is “hydrophilic” (water loving) and the other “hydrophobic” (water hating). It therefore aligns itself into a natural barrier when in fluid (which connects quite well with the water born theory of life!) and basically is responsible for the complex interaction of cells (plus some other molecule located in the layer.

DNA is another molecule (which actually is very simple!), which naturally groups together, the bonding between the different regions of the molecule naturally want to condense into a larger structure.

Anyway, Prokaryotes were the first type of cell to form and it is mainly expressed as bacteria. For the “complex” nature of cells (which aren’t actually complex when you study them) occurred only later in evolution. The cells that make you up are basically prokaryotes with additions, additions that allow cells to do more but aren’t required for it to live. The reason why some cells die when you remove certain parts is because of dependency, cells have evolved to become dependant on the “organelles” so they don’t intrinsically need them.

As the theory goes some prokaryotes engulfed other early organisms that existed for example Mitochondria, organelles that produces a lot of chemical energy. This is actually very sensible in terms of mutualism as the mitochondria gets protection while the cell gets a lot more energy to do more things. The organelles as they were engulfed shared their DNA so that future cells would be able to produce them themselves. Btw, yes many of the cell organelles have their OWN DNA.

The most successful Eukaryotes produced “copies” of themselves that lived in beneficial mutualism and through evolution developed differently into more “complex “ as you put it, life forms. You are not one entity, you are many billions of entities, in fact you are a colony of specialised bacteria, that’s all!

Please come back when you know more about biology.

What exactly are you asking? It is of my belief that life has to have certain conditions to be in existence. It might not have to be oxygen, or carbon dioxide, but there are strict guidelines. Because if there weren't than I would expect life to exist everywhere. I would expect us to be able to live off of eating dirt, instead of nutrient rich foods. See what I mean?

Btw, life must have started without oxygen; it is unstable and is only really created by photosynthetic life, one reason why it is thought photosynthetic organisms were among the first living things.

Life did need certain conditions to be in existence, that’s exactly why it is thought that life appeared when it did because before that the earth was still not stable enough to support life. However remember that the first basic organisms such as what PR said, the Archeobacter were very simple and could survive in a number of conditions that the more complex life could not, it would not be too difficult to get life started as I have already pointed out.

See what you mean, yes, does it make sense, no. Many simple organisms do eat dirt (detritivores) and actually it can be quite rich, it’s called Humus, it’s BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL! They don’t need masses amount of energy anyway.

We don’t eat dirt because as life developed, it was necessary to secure more rich sources of energy, which naturally developed into herbivores and carnivores as “more “complex” life also harbours more energy, therefore life started to feed on each other to sustain larger organisms. Only because we must sustain a whole colony of the cells from which we are made is why we don’t eat dirt.


Mmm….I think that’s enough said! : I just wanted to expand on what PR said. Are we finished or do you want to carry on with your misconceptions about evolution and biology? Why won't this topic die? It is obvious that the people argueing pro-evolution are the only one's who know anything about biology.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Two genes? No, they are Alleles, expressions of a single gene, it is an important difference.

Dude, you had to complicate things for him didn't you? :p

Anyway, Prokaryotes were the first type of cell to form and it is mainly expressed as bacteria. For the “complex” nature of cells (which aren’t actually complex when you study them) occurred only later in evolution. The cells that make you up are basically prokaryotes with additions, additions that allow cells to do more but aren’t required for it to live. The reason why some cells die when you remove certain parts is because of dependency, cells have evolved to become dependant on the “organelles” so they don’t intrinsically need them.

As the theory goes some prokaryotes engulfed other early organisms that existed for example Mitochondria, organelles that produces a lot of chemical energy. This is actually very sensible in terms of mutualism as the mitochondria gets protection while the cell gets a lot more energy to do more things. The organelles as they were engulfed shared their DNA so that future cells would be able to produce them themselves. Btw, yes many of the cell organelles have their OWN DNA.

Yes you did, couldn't resist could you?

You really think he is going to get that origin of the eucaryotes? Or the explanation on why some organelles have their own DNA?

What are trying to do? Scare him away? What then? He is the only one trying to fight... :cool

[Syron]

What are trying to do? Scare him away? What then? He is the only one trying to fight... :cool

: Scare him away? probably!

I'm just fed up of people who come out with primary school science, promptly then muddling it up and trying to tell everyone else the "truth", as if there are not any people older, wiser and more knowledgeable. Yes, I know he's young but he doesn't seem appreciate the depth of scientific knowledge, hell I knew most of the basics of the stuff I said at his age, it's not like he can't understand it. If he's clever he'll look up the things I've said and actually then perhaps appreciate things more.

Look he's even muddling evolution and Lamarckism, that a crime against humanity! Admittidly many theists do that and just shows that there is even more validity to our view as their arguments are based on misconceptions.

You can argue with him if you want but it's pretty pointless until he understands more about the concepts involved.

I have however yet to find someone who is an anti evolutionist and also understands the things I said, coincidence?

[Portuguese Rebel]

Look he's even muddling evolution and Lamarckism, that a crime against humanity!

You really have to understand where they are coming from. In their view of the world everything has a purpose, a goal, dictated by a higher intelligence. I think it is quite hard to go from that set of view to one where you have to realize that many things are "positive" to a being only because the enviroment so determines. Beings do not evolve because they feel the need to evolve, they are rather selected by what they already are by a changing enviroment and that is confusing for someone with such backround. It's not really their fault, it is a matter of indoctrination at a young age.

You can argue with him if you want but it's pretty pointless until he understands more about the concepts involved.

Ah but he shows great promisse. Look at how skeptic he is of modern science, if we can just make him turn that skepticism also in another directions he will come through the "darkness" :smile

[Scrappy Jenks]

lol, I love these forums, tons of well informed people. Look, LegionareX, this whole debate with you is pointless. You havent had a Bio course yet. If you really want to understand the theory of evolution and what Portugese Rebel and Syron (and I would have been too if I had noticed this thread earlier) you have to take a Bio course (one which teaches the theory of evolution) and preferably a Physical Antrhopology class. I dont know where you live (if its in the South theres no hope youll be taught evolution) but a college class is generally needed to get the complexity of these theories and arguments so I heartily suggest these classes once you get to college. Also, I like the turning his sarcasm in a different direction comment. Also, heres an interesting tidbit http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion...ution/1990.html . Scroll down to where it says "Pope John Paul II." If the Catholic Church which resisted Galileo for 400 years can accept Evolution in only 150, then I think most religious people should be able to too.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Scroll down to where it says "Pope John Paul II." If the Catholic Church which resisted Galileo for 400 years can accept Evolution in only 150, then I think most religious people should be able to too.

The catholic church is pretty advanced in some aspects (although completely backwards in others). They just wanted to avoid being embaressed in the future like they were with the whole geocentrism thing.

I don't believe in God....

...everything in the universe is scientific...

how life started on Earth does not explain how life started on other planets...

Therefore, I believe in Evolution from simplest life form (bacteria and other 1 celled organisms.)

All IMHO, don't bash me for it. *smokin*

EDIT:: Also IMHO, it is possible life on Earth also to have derived from other planets. Planets created by gravity + space debris. Space debris come from exploding stars. Space debris containing anaerobic organisms forms Earth, and wala...you got a planet with life.

[Scrappy Jenks]

Yeah...its possible however unlikely that they may find a weakness...and exploit it. Sorry. I suppose thats possible just unbelievably unlikely as water is essential to all life on Earth so its inconcievable that the earliest life forms didnt form in water but on an asteroid or other planet in this solar system. Add to that the fact that there is no indication (that Im aware of) that the earth was ever hit by another planet...*shrug*. I kinda put faith in the lightning bolt theory shown to have at least some credence by the Urey-Miller experiment. There are some other experiments involving RNA repilication I think but I forget what they are.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Add to that the fact that there is no indication (that Im aware of) that the earth was ever hit by another planet...*shrug*.

The biggest thing that ever hit the Earth was a comet large enough to form such amount of debris that it formed our moon, according to one of the hypothesys for the moon formation.

There are some other experiments involving RNA repilication I think but I forget what they are.

Self replicant RNA molecules. They act as their own enzimes and suffer mutations, with the more efficient strands replacing the older... This is one of the reasons it is believed today that RNA based life preceded DNA based life. But as always we can't be sure.

[Scrappy Jenks]

Yeah I kinda figured a comet would be the biggest thing. And I do know about the self-replicating RNA strands but I cant remeber any experiment names, thats what I meant.

[Syron]

Originally posted by Scrappy Jenks+Oct 15 2004, 03:18 PM --></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Scrappy Jenks @ Oct 15 2004, 03:18 PM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah...its possible however unlikely that they may find a weakness...and exploit it. Sorry. I suppose thats possible just unbelievably unlikely as water is essential to all life on Earth so its inconcievable that the earliest life forms didnt form in water but on an asteroid or other planet in this solar system.[/b]

While I think it may be a stretch, at least at the moment, to say that may have life began on comets, I think it is most likely that comets provided the earth with the basic materials of life and possibly even kickstarted it's appearence on earth. We know it's likely that comets provided much of the water on earth after the cooling so it is not much of a stretch to say they could have provided more.

Life from other planets? Possible, but if this did happen I think it would only be possible with "primitive" organisms that could survive in suspended animation.

Of course this is all hypothetical which is why I can't wait till some of the space projects over the next decade or so show results like Rosetta, Smart-1 and of course Darwin.

<!--QuoteBegin-Portuguese Rebel@Oct 15 2004, 03:40 PM
The biggest thing that ever hit the Earth was a comet large enough to form such amount of debris that it formed our moon, according to one of the hypothesys for the moon formation.[/quote]
Comet? Current theory suggests an object the size of Mars....that's a damn BIG comet! :

[Rodman1_r2]

Originally posted by Origninally said by: unkown
Some call it evolution, I call it God.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Comet? Current theory suggests an object the size of Mars....that's a damn BIG comet! on_5.gif

Either the size of mars and low mass (for its size) or a more dense large comet... I sure would like to have a time machine to go back and see that... from a safe distance of course... :p

Originally posted by Syron@Oct 15 2004, 05:48 PM
Life from other planets? Possible, but if this did happen I think it would only be possible with "primitive" organisms that could survive in suspended animation.

Hmm...not really...I mean there are certain small anaerobic organisms that can survive on sunlight alone.

So my theory on anaerobic bacteria carried by comets/small debris from other planets is highly possible.

[Syron]

Either the size of mars and low mass (for its size) or a more dense large comet... I sure would like to have a time machine to go back and see that... from a safe distance of course...

I'm pretty sure when they say size they mean by mass also, it's a common interchange/misuse(?) of words in science, and also because we could only really have the possibility of calculating the "mass" of the supposed object from the debris created and not it's "size". Anyway, however you look at it this object was alsost certainly a proto-planet but this whole thing has little relevence however as we know it is possible for planets to exchange material without direct collision such as martian meteorites like ALH84001.

Hmm...not really...I mean there are certain small anaerobic organisms that can survive on sunlight alone.

So my theory on anaerobic bacteria carried by comets/small debris from other planets is highly possible.

Well there is of course the slight problem that life as we know it requires liquid water, something that planetary debris lacks. As for comets, while they do have ice unfortunately due to the low pressure of space, most of the time it should almost immediately sublime from a solid into a gas leaving little room for a niche habitat.

There is also another problem and that is the fact that such organisms would have to survive being blasted from the surface of their home planet, for even the most resilient of creatures surviving this would be more a case of luck.

I'm not saying that your idea can't happen, the Panspermia theory is certainly possible but I think that the most probable form such creatures would take if it did happen would be one's that would be able to survive the lack of water and the process that left them in space, namely those that can remain in suspended animation indefinately similar to others seen on earth.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Any life carried by a comet/meteor would have to be fundamentaly different chemicaly. If it was water/carbon based for example it is highly unlikely that it could survive the hardships of a long space travel and an atmosphere entry. But even if it did that life still would have to be compatible with primitive Earth's enviroment. And this, given it's extra-terrestrial origin is again unlikely.

It is however interesting to think about it, although it only serves to re-place the question. Life's origin still must be explained, and it easier to do it if you have Earth as the starting planet.

[Syron]

It is however interesting to think about it, although it only serves to re-place the question. Life's origin still must be explained, and it easier to do it if you have Earth as the starting planet.

Very true.

Unfortunately,unless we develop new avenues of research in this area we do have a slight problem on the issue of the start of life, the oldest rocks i.e. those that haven't been changed are only at most about 3 billion years old, not old enough. Also the original organisms would likely be so small and unrecognisable that if by chance evidence was found then it would be so easily disputed that we wouldn't be able to get any further. In fact it is a bit like the ALH84001 meteorite, there is evidence of something but it is so ambiguous that still no-one really knows although it is probably unlikely to actually be fossilised life.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Unfortunately,unless we develop new avenues of research in this area we do have a slight problem on the issue of the start of life, the oldest rocks i.e. those that haven't been changed are only at most about 3 billion years old, not old enough.

Actually the record is currently at some 3.9 billions... Not that is matters much.

In fact it is a bit like the ALH84001 meteorite, there is evidence of something but it is so ambiguous that still no-one really knows although it is probably unlikely to actually be fossilised life.

Techically those are "organized carbon structures". I've seen pictures and data from those and all i can say is that i see a lot of wichfull thinking in the suporters of those carbon structures as being fossils. Those strutures are so small that they can be compared to carbon micro-cristals. I can see no evidence of life in those strutures, even admiting that they are original and not a kind of contaminant.