The Origin of Life on Earth

El Tatio Chile via vivaboo.com credit twiga_269

Where did we come from?
How did life start?
What is the origin of man?

These are questions that have been pondered by man since the beginning. One answer, the workings of evolution, was proposed by Charles Darwin in his On The Origins Of Species. There are an unknown number of different life forms currently sharing this planet. And there have been an even larger number of unknown species that have roamed the lands and seas in the epochs of the past. To date there have been 1.5 million species cataloged and a best guess estimate of up to another 8 million that have not been cataloged. These numbers only look at current species and not at previous inhabitants of the planet. And everyday, scientists predict that species that have not even been 'discovered' are going extinct at the hands of man.

Evolution project by NTamura 

While the actions of man are a whole ugly 50 gallon barrel of worms, we will leave it for another day. Today we are exploring the pondering of where we (all life) came from. And to that means the generally accepted and propagated fact is that all life emerged from the primordial ooze. Once emerged the fact of natural selection took over and brought us to today. Now, before you die hard evolutionists want to start screaming that evolution has been proven over and over again and thus is FACT. I counter you; not, that some aspects of evolution are not true, but, that evolution as presented by Mr. Darwin is only part of the story, and honestly, he did not get it all right, but, he was on to a few pieces of the puzzle.

Now, not to offend or leave out the other side, the creationists. If one studies the myths of creation, a large number of them speak of either God, a god, or a specific god, such as Zeus, creating man from dirt, mud or clay from the earth. That all creatures were created in their current 'state' and that man is the chosen species. When discovering other myths from various cultures we also hear of different kinds of man or man-like species that have come and gone. There are also myths that tell of even different times of our own mankind with regard to our life-spans, our sizes, and other physical features. While both camps seem mostly unwilling to even look at the other point of view, I would argue that they both are equally wrong and equally right!

After everyone gets over being mad at me, do yourself and mankind a favor and continue reading.

So let's now look at the real facts. Both sides have 'life' coming out of mud or a puddle or pile of dirt. Sounds like the same thing to me. Both sides have 'different man-kind' living at different times in our history. Both sides have man 'changing' in some way or ways over time. As we can see if you strip away the division we can find that the basics, the foundations of both sides are basically the same.

via www.thundertix.com

Yet, we can also look at each side and find some pieces that each builds on that are not solid in their own right. The creationists are unwilling to accept that some of their myths have time-lines that are not accurate. Another fact that is somewhat challenging to prove, in most myths are the outside influences of deities, demons, and others.  While it is true that the devil is in the details; sometimes, the trick is to understand just what the details are defining. Also, there should be understanding of the story-teller and the listener to the story. Think of how you might answer the same question posed by a child and by an adult. Something that we have lost in our modern era is that actual art of story-telling and thus it creates confusion and lack of understanding. It is like reading a epic in a language that you have elementary knowledge of.

Then there are the Darwinists, who claim that we all progressed from the same single-celled one in a google chance amoeba. Which would actually mean that there were by the science numbers up to 10 million of those similarly luckiest single-cells, which would actually make them utterly common and thus should have been replicated by now, by those same scientists. The most basic concept of natural selection that is those species that do not adapt die off and that each species always adopts the genes that make them the strongest. That supposition suggests that we should actually have fewer species now than we do and it also suggests that we should basically only have ONE of each different species. Now before you get your safety goggles all steamed up; yes, I know that I am over simplifying the process...but, bear with me the simplicity helps limit the discussion to a starting point.
But the biggest issue with evolution is that we do not seem to be able to find the missing links that prove the jumping of species.

news.discovery.com

What I mean is that we do not have any of the missing links that supposedly had to exist to make life on earth a single tree of life instead of a forest of life. Evolutionists can in some species follow, for example all dogs and wolves and other canines back to a possible ancestor, they have yet to get the canine and feline back to the same ancestor. All of the 'original' ancestors are theorized not discovered and cataloged. Most importantly, the scientific definition of what makes us 'man' or different from animals has to keep changing. Man is defined by culture, but what is culture? It was the use of tools, but there are other animals that use tools; it was the use of language, but numerous animals use vocalizations to communicate which is the accepted definition of language.

Yes, there some features that all or groups of species have in common, but that in and of itself does not support evolution in its totality. Just as the differences do not in and of themselves disprove evolution for creationism. This is a story that cannot be told until both sides admit they do not know the whole of the story and that both sides have pieces of the puzzle if they will work together we will be able to put the whole thing together sooner.