From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/21/2025 10:27 AM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 11/21/2025 8:48 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >> On 11/20/2025 4:00 PM, sticks wrote:   
   >>> On 11/20/2025 10:43 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Science News claims that they used AI analytics to identify the   
   >>>> traces of photosynthetic life.  3.3 billion years is around the time   
   >>>> that there may have only been two surviving lineages of eubacteria   
   >>>> and archaea both would have contained the genes for both   
   >>>> chemotrophic and photosynthetic life.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The last common ancestor of eubacteria and archaea supposedly   
   >>>> existed with these atributes 4.2 billion years ago, so if they can   
   >>>> find the right rocks they may be able to detect photosynthesis in   
   >>>> rocks that old.   
   >>>   
   >>> Also, the original link also points to further reading at the bottom   
   >>> of the article with a link that was here awhile back.   
   >>>   
   >>> >> mars- astrobiologist.html>   
   >>>   
   >>> "These minerals may have formed on the rock when ancient microbes   
   >>> used chemical reactions to produce energy. But chemical reactions not   
   >>> related to life can also produce these minerals under certain   
   >>> conditions."   
   >>>   
   >>> And this commendable sentence:   
   >>>   
   >>> "Now, scientists are looking into the explanations that wouldn't   
   >>> require life to form these features on the sample."   
   >>>   
   >>> My point is, the subject of this piece, "Earth's earliest life 3.3   
   >>> billion years ago revealed by faint biosignatures" is the kind of   
   >>> thing I object to.  Not the work, but the way it gets framed.   
   >>> Reading the title, you would think they have found evidence of life   
   >>> from 3.3 billion years ago.  But when you dig in, they simply have   
   >>> not and are continuing their work.  One has to wonder why they   
   >>> omitted the "potential" in their description in the recent article?   
   >>> This is a far too common way of doing things where previous work is   
   >>> cited and used to further the importance of a finding, without having   
   >>> to repeat the problems.  It's dishonest.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Your problem is that we have other evidence that life existed on this   
   >> planet over 3 billion years ago.  They have found fossil stromatolites   
   >> like the stromatolites still formed by bacteria today in rocks over   
   >> 3.4 billion years old.  These are not just chemical traces.   
   >>   
   >> Researchers are just looking for more different types of evidence for   
   >> life.  We already have other evidence that life existed at this time.   
   >>   
   >> The article notes that the chemical signatures are not the oldest   
   >> traces of life.  It was just a different means of identifying evidence   
   >> that past life has left behind, and like I noted if they find older   
   >> sedimentary rocks they could do the same analysis.   
   >   
   > Your problem is that both you and John seem to think I was questioning   
   > the dating, which if you read it again you will clearly see I was not.   
   > That is an entirely separate area of interest, but not what my reply was   
   > about at all.   
      
   Over hype of findings in news articles is commonly discussed here.  They   
   are looking for evidence of life where they expect to find it.  There is   
   already evidence that life existed at that time.  They aren't just   
   making junk up to claim that life existed in those rocks.  They are   
   looking for chemical signatures that life leaves behind in the   
   sedimentary layers that become rock.  Your objection to the over hype is   
   noted, but your objection doesn't change the reality that you can't   
   accept.  As I noted there is other evidence of fossil stromatolites over   
   3.4 billion years old.  You know that you have an objection to that   
   reality, but your issue with this study doesn't matter about what you   
   can't accept.   
      
   You claim to be some type of YEC.  YEC is still are the largest portion   
   of creationist support for the ID creationist scam.  YEC have likely   
   been the victims of all the bait and switch ploys that the ID perps have   
   had to run.  The ID perps sell the ID scam, but only give the rubes a   
   stupid obfuscation and denial switch scam that they tell the rubes has   
   nothing to do with creationism nor ID.  The last bait and switch went   
   down on the West Virginia legislature, and even after the bait and   
   switch had gone down and the legislator had, had to remove mentioning ID   
   from the legislation and replace it with switch scam language, she still   
   claimed that ID could be taught in the West Virginia public schools, and   
   had to have the bait and switch run on her again.   
      
   https://scienceandculture.com/2024/03/west-virginia-passes-bill-   
   rotecting-teacher-rights-to-answer-student-questions-on-scientific-theories/   
      
   https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/   
      
   This is the Educator's briefing packet where the ID perps claim that the   
   Kitzmiller decision was wrong, and that even though ID was found to be   
   illegal to teach in Dover that it is still legal to teach the junk   
   elsewhere.   
      
   The Bait and Switch goes down every single time that YEC creationists   
   want to teach the junk in the public schools.  Most of the ID perps are   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)