A Logical account of creation

Account of life: The earth is 4.5 billion years old. At that point in time, several distinct forms were instantaneously created, an amoeba, a fish, a plant, a reptile, an amphibian, an arthropod, and a mammal. These original forms diversified into the innumerable species we see today. But these forms did not evolve from one original organism, so there is no need to justify the origin of life from a biochemical soup. Life was instantaneously created along the forms listed above at the beginning moment of time. Random mutation and speciation has occurred from this beginning moment in time to produce all of the species we see today.Afternote: This is not my view, and I am not presenting it as such. If I were, I would need to provide evidence for the truth of this account. I have proposed this because of a recent discussion with a friend, and because the creationist crowd seems to be a little slow these days. My question is, although there is no factual evidence in support of this account, is there enough scientific evidence to disprove this account of life?I suppose it should go in biological evolution?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, as one data point in the argument against such a creation there are these facts of the first appearance of these "kinds":amoeba "kind" - Achaean period
plant and fish "kinds" - Vendian period
arthropod "kind" - Pre-Cambrian period
amphibian "kind" - Devonian period
reptile "kind" - Carboniferous period
mammal "kind" - Triassic period
ignorant creationist "kind" - Cenozoic periodSeems to me that if these "kinds" were created at the beginning then we should see all of them in the Achaean period.

amoebazoa - archaean eon.and technically, there are no known eukaryote fossils from anywhere in the archaean eon, though it's likely this is when they evolved. really, we should list this as the slatherian era, in the paleo-proterozoic era, in the proterozoic eon, when we have the first fossils. plantae - ordovician period (paleozoic era)"fish" are paraphyletic. technically, we're in one of the many "fish" groups. jawed chordates, gnathostomata, first appeared in the silurian period, also paleozoic. "pre-cambrian" is a bad name, as it encompasses anything before the cambrian period, which is the vast majoriy of the earth's history. and in any case, hard parts first evolved in the cambrian "explosion" so you wouldn't see "true" arthropods before then their segmented worm ancestors.primitive arthropoda - ediacaran period (neo-proterozoic era). kind of. amphibia does seem to first appear in the devonian, but the first "true" amphibians appear in the mississipian (carboniferous). "reptiles" are polyphyletic.sauropsida - pennsylvanian (carboniferous) period. sort of. the first "true" mammals, triassic, as you say. but mammals actually diverge lower than sauropsids from amniota. homo - neogene period, cenozoic era.

---

So you're saying I got 1 of 7 correct and another 2 of 7 at least close. That's not bad for me. I'll take it.

it was more a quibble of what's a "period" vs "era" vs "eon"but you got most of them pretty close, and if that's from memory it's very impressive. i had to check them......but i'm gonna have to study that for my paleo exam...

---

Hi Platypus,
One of the arguments against the instantaneous creation of most of these eukaryotic organisms 4.5 billion years ago is that at that time, there was not atmospheric dioxygen (O2). The geological record is fairly clear that dioxygen didn't appear until ~2 billion years ago, based on the presence of detrital pyrite and uranitite, sulfur isotopes, and banded iron formations (among others that I'm forgetting). So those critters would have had a pretty rough time breathing.Also, the formation of the Moon occurred about 4.4 billion years ago, and it's believed that the surface of the Earth became liquified magma at that time due to the huge impact that formed the moon.

uhh...well...Yeah! Right. Don't I wish.And, obviously, my sources are not as accurate as necessary.

Thanks guys, my geology background is severly lacking. I was thinking of very complicated biological arguments, but the geological evidence is much simpler. Is there anything else that could be offered?

Hi Matt,I actually do not find this argument particularly convincing. Could it be possible that these organisms survived by other means, at least initially, and then later evolved the means to breathe oxygen? Also, I suppose I could change the original position so that these species were simultaneously created 2 billion years ago, when dioxygen formed. Come to think of it, the simultaneous origination of the original forms does not need to correspond to the creation of the universe. What do you have to say to this?As a question of curiosity, why was there no dioxygen until 2 bya? Did dioxygen appear with the first plants, or was it caused by some other factor that in turn aided the formation of plants and animals?

Hi Paul,I don't know enough geology to argue about the nature of the evidence, but I'll take your points as true. Being a flexible scientific investigator, I change my position so that each of these "kinds" were inserted at various points in the earth's history, as you have labelled. But I am going to contend that each kind insertion was a separate event, and that no two kinds evolved from one another.

this is where taxonomy would help."amoeba kind" as i pointed out above, is amaboezoa, in eukaryota. we're eukaryotes. "fish kind" is really paraphyletic. the largest group containing all "fish" is chordata, which also contains all tetrapods. we are chordates. amphibians are a subgroup of tetrapods, and we are a subgroup of tetrapods. reptiles are sauropsid amniotes. we are synapsid amniotes. and it should be obvious that we are mammals.the problem with "poofing" each of these "kinds" into existance is that they are all on different levels of the heirarchy. many of them contain others that you are contend "poofed" into existance. and you are only representing a very, very minute sampling of taxa. nearly every group that you could even hope to name has a known ancestor -- the fossil record is actually quite smooth."poofing" things into existance makes very little sense, and indeed just becomes an extra arbitrary step over a much more simple and elegant solution. your idea, as it stands, already requires a fair degree of acceptance of evolution for one initial "kind" to produce all the variety of species under that taxon. why the added step, when that mechanism is more than adequate at explaining the initial member of the taxon?

---

Hi again,
The difficulty with breathing something else instead of O2 is that it needs to be an electron acceptor. O2 is one of the best electron receivers out there. Other anaerobic organisms use things like methane, hydrogen sulfide, and some more obscure transition metals. However, among eukaryotes, O2 is the universal electron acceptor.O2 is not stable and it is continuously replenished by photosynthesis. On planets without life, there is no O2 in the atmosphere. On Earth O2 it is believed that O2 originated as a waste product from photosynthesis. So O2 did indeed originate with the first plant-like organisms (in this case, photosynthetic bacteria).Still, if we move the creation back to 2 Ga (billion years), we still have to make the O2. So maybe the first bacteria and archaea were created ~4 Ga, and then these other creatures were created 2 Ga. Other than conflicting with the fossil record (and not being the most elegant of theories), it wouldn't be that bad an idea.Do you know of Louis Agassiz? Agassiz was one of the last geologists/zoologists to resist the Darwin's theory of evolution. His idea for the succession of fossils amounted to the spontaneous creation of each and every species of organism. You proposal is a bit of a mix between Agassiz and Darwin .Background info- Rise of O2:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article541.htmlLouis Agassiz
Louis Agassiz - Wikipedia

There is a lesser know version of creation that I believe in. It says in Genisis 1 that in the begining God created the heavens and earth then it says that the heavens and earth became dark waters. What is dark waters on a street during a snowy winters day but ice. Scientist say that the ice age was caused by a comet hitting the earth. The bible states that Lucifer was cast like a baseball to the earth. If a supernatural being was to throw another being out of anger it would be like a high speed pitch at the world series. Then it says he remade the heavens and the earth in six supernatural days and rested on the seventh. Couldn't the prehistoric neandrathal and the dinosaurs be just prototypes that were destroyed befor the ice age and remade after the heavens and the earth were rebuilt and the promise to Noah after the second flood was made was to let all creation know we only have one more chance?

um. no. ice ages are caused, generally, by a change in the tilt of the axis of the earth. And we have evidence of several ice ages occuring during earth's history. How many chances is god gonna give us? (assuming you're thinking that ice age is the destruction of the earth, i'm not really positive what you're saying though, mind clarifying?)and in all reality, a high speed pitch at the world series is insignificant. It can top what, 130 mph? that baseball has very little impact in the great scheme of things. try throwing something the size of a city at more than 20,000 mph to get some real effect on the earth (and even that's gonna be small compared to supernovas).anywho, welcome to EvC.