Today is the 3rd Day of Chinese New Year 2025 of the zodiacal snake when I
received on my smartphone early this morning a paper published by a team of 19 scientists and researchers who claimed this:
The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on the early Earth system
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1.
According
to these scientists, our earliest ancestor wasn’t Adam or Eve but Luca. Luca didn’t
look anything like us – it was a single-celled bacterium-like organism. This team of scientists based in the UK has delivered rather shocking news about
this illustrious forebear. Despite having lived almost as far back as seems
possible, Luca was surprisingly similar to modern bacteria – and what’s more,
it apparently lived in a thriving community of other organisms that have left
no trace on Earth today.
The
article says that Luca – short for the last universal common ancestor, the
progenitor of all known life on Earth – seems to have been born 4.2 billion
years ago. Back then our planet was no Eden but something of a hell on Earth: a
seething mass of volcanoes pummelled by giant meteorites and having recovered
from a cosmic collision that blasted the world apart and created the moon from
some of the fragments. There is a good reason why the geological aeon before
4 billion years ago is called the Hadean, after the Greek god of the underworld
Hades.
If Luca
really was so ancient, yet already so sophisticated and embedded in a whole
ecosystem, there’s a startling implication that goes far beyond an
understanding of our own origins. It suggests that life must have got started
on Earth pretty much as soon as it possibly could have done. Which in turn
implies that, given the right conditions and ingredients, life might not be an
extremely rare and unlikely accident, as some scientists have believed, but
rather, almost an inevitability, and therefore likely to be abundant in the
universe.
Earth
was spinning faster on its axis, so the days were 12 hours long. The moon was
closer than it is now, so the tides were stronger says Rika
Anderson, a microbiologist.
Luca’s
existence is a corollary of Darwinian evolutionary theory, whereby all living
organisms from microbes to whales descended from earlier ones in one vast tree
of life. We humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzee) that
lived about 6-8 million years ago. All monkeys and apes are thought to have branched
from a common ancestor about 25 million years ago. Keep going back down the tree far
enough, according to these scientists, we will find a common ancestor of all mammals, then all vertebrate
organisms, and so on.
The
details are in this link:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jan/19/luca-is-the-progenitor-of-all-life-on-earth-but-its-genesis-has-implications-far-beyond-our-planet
The
link talks about Luca as the progenitor of all life on earth.
As a biological and medial scientist myself who have studied evolution of life on Earth, astrobiology on the origin of life from another world, and yet my strong believer on creation, let me now share with all what the Bible says about creation of heavens, earth and all life
on Earth as given in Genesis:
1.
In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2.
And
the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And
the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the waters.
3.
And God said,
Let there be light: and there was light.
4.
And God saw* the light, that it
was good: and God divided* the light from the darkness.
5.
And God called the light Day, and
the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day.
6.
And God said,
Let there be a firmament in the midst of
the waters, and let it divide the waters from
the waters.
7.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament
from
the waters which were above the firmament: and
it was so.
8.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And
the evening and the morning were the second day.
9.
And God said,
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and
let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and
the gathering together of the waters called the
Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11. And God said, Let
the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and
the fruit tree yielding fruit after
his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and
it was so.
12. And
the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after
his kind, and
the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it
was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were
the third day.
14. And God said, Let there be lights in
the firmament of
the heaven to divide the day from
the night; and let them be for signs, and
for seasons, and for days, and years:
15. And let them be for lights in
the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth: and it was so.
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night: he made
the stars also.
17. And God set them in
the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over
the night, and to divide the light from
the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the morning were
the fourth day.
20. And God said, Let the waters bring
forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and fowl that
may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and
every living creature that moveth, which
the waters brought forth abundantly, after
their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in
the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23. And the evening and the morning were
the fifth day.
24. And God said, Let
the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after
his kind: and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of
the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and everything that creepeth upon
the earth after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.
26. And God said, let us make man in
our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So, God created man in his
own image, in the image of God created
him; male and female created them.
28. And God blessed them,
and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29. And God said, Behold, I
have given you every herb bearing seed, which is
upon the face of all the earth, and
every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to
you it shall be for meat.
30. And to every beast of the earth, and
to every fowl of the air, and to everything
that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there
is life*, I have given every green herb for meat: and
it was so.
31. And God saw everything that he
had made, and behold, it was very good. And
the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
However,
in Genesis in the Bible all the way down from verse 1 to verse 31 it tells us
all life on earth was created in a big way. It did not say life originated from
any single cell like the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which was the
hypothesized cell that gave rise to all life on Earth, including bacteria and
archaea that current scientists hypothesize. LUCA is a node on the tree of
life that represents the point at which the prokaryotic domains of archaea and
bacteria diverged.
Let me
explain the Bible was written long, long ago, and was meant initially for
ancient people who had no clue on bacteria or on microbiology. They have no
microscope then. Hence, we do not expect the ancient writers of the Bible
to know anything about bacteria. Neither did they know anything about LUCA or life at cellular or molecular
levels when they started to write the Bible. We don't expect them to write a book on microbiology, how life started as LUCA or as some form
of bacteria instead of a Bible, do we?
Then
ancient people and even ordinary non-scientists of the modern world would then not be able to
understand. They will be totally confused. The whole story on creation
will be lost in transition. They need to write what they could see and
understand. The Bible is not a science book. It was written about God dealings with humans for their ultimate salvation. It is not about science or on minute technical accounts
about creation, let alone about bacteriology and LUCA. This would serve no
purpose what would happen to our souls when we die.
In
Genesis verse 2 to verse 10 for example, it says how land arose above the
waters, probably due to geological upheaval when land mass below the oceans
started to rise up below the ocean floors separating the dry land and the
waters (oceans) when there was already light. This is perfectly tallies with what geologists and scientists understand today on the rise of ocean floors into land mass, separating dry land from the oceans. It is completely in tune with what
is also stated in these two verses:
9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Then in
verse 11 when there was already water and light photosynthesis became possible
for grass, herbs, seed and possible tree to grow. What’s wrong with this verse?
It was perfectly correct that green plants could only arise when there is light for
their photosynthesis.
Following
those creative events, from verses 20 to 22 it says:
“And
God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath
life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the
waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after
his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be
fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply
in the earth”.
That
sequence in the verses 20 to 22 too is completely perfect that we as
evolutionary biologists, too know and accept. There is nothing wrong with
those two verses - both in the eyes of a creationist and and a evolutionist. All these verses written in that sequence were perfectly in line with what we know about the emergence of life in stages during evolution.
Following
all those creative or evolutionary events, in verse 24 till verse 27 it says:
“And
God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,
and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And
God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,
and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it
was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth. So, God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them”
To me all
these verses that follow sequentially one after the other are perfectly in the
same order in which scientists like myself as evolutionary biologists believe how life too has
evolved in stages in these sequence.
In what
way do creationists not agree with the evolutionists, and vice versa how life came into
existence on this planet? Life may have started as a single living cell before
they aggregate as multicellular, and later into more complex forms of life that
can be visible to the naked eye without a microscope. The ancient writers of
the Bible did not have any microscope and ancient followers of religion would
not understand even if it was written. The transition would then be lost.
I
believe this has been the visible and practical way the Bible was purposely
written for early mankind without a microscope till these modern scientists
came along to hypothesize that life originated as microscopic Luca and as not
visible plants, fish, whales and birds in the air appearing first as written in
Genesis.
I
believe this is one of the reasons why the creationists in the Bible cannot
agree with evolutionists of Darwin
Let me
go further to explain this intriguing perspective that harmonizes the narrative
in Genesis with the stages of biological evolution. It’s always a pleasure for
me to engage in such meaningful discussions with the Church and the scientists. Let me explore this question thoughtfully.
Creationism
vs. Evolution: Core Differences
The
disagreement between creationists and evolutionists primarily stems from
differences in worldview, interpretative approaches, and the methodologies used
to understand the origins of life:
1.
Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation of Genesis
a.
Creationists: Many creationists (particularly "Young Earth
Creationists") interpret Genesis literally, believing that all life forms
were created in six 24-hour days around 6,000–10,000 years ago. This view sees
no room for common ancestry or evolutionary processes, as each species was
"created after its kind."
b.
Evolutionists: Evolutionary biologists view the Genesis account as a symbolic
or metaphorical description, not a literal one. They rely on evidence from
palaeontology, genetics, and geology to trace life's development over billions
of years, starting from simple life forms like LUCA (Last Universal Common
Ancestor).
2.
Origin of Life: Instantaneous Creation vs. Gradual Evolution
a.
Creationists: Life was created fully formed and functional by a divine act.
Adam and Eve, for example, were created as adult humans, bypassing any
evolutionary ancestry.
b.
Evolutionists: Life originated from simpler organic molecules through natural
processes, eventually forming LUCA about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Over vast
time spans, this single-celled organism diversified through mutation, natural
selection, and adaptation.
3. The
Role of Divine Intervention
a.
Creationists: The origin of life and its diversity is seen as a direct result
of God's will and design, often described as supernatural intervention.
b.
Evolutionists: Evolutionary biology explains life's complexity as an outcome of
natural processes governed by physical laws, without requiring direct
supernatural intervention.
Reconciling
the Two Perspectives
1.
Genesis as a Framework Compatible with Evolution
As I
observed, Genesis presents a sequential creation narrative that intriguingly
aligns with the evolutionary timeline:
- Light and separation of water (verses 1–10):
Formation of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
- Vegetation (verse 11): The emergence of
photosynthesis, enabling plants to thrive.
- Aquatic life and birds (verses 20–22): Early marine
organisms evolving, followed by reptiles and birds.
- Land animals and humans (verses 24–27): The rise of
mammals and eventually Homo sapiens.
This
pattern parallels the evolutionary stages, suggesting that the Bible could be
seen as presenting a simplified account of creation for an ancient audience,
conveying truths through a framework they could understand.
2.
God’s Role in Evolution
Many
theologians and scientists (e.g., proponents of theistic evolution) argue that
evolution could be the mechanism God used to bring about the diversity of life.
In this view, LUCA, natural selection, and mutations are tools in God's
creative process, harmonizing science and faith.
Why
Creationists Resist Evolution:
1.
Perceived Threat to Divine Authority
Creationists
often see evolution as undermining the idea of a purposeful creation by God. If
life arose through random processes, they fear it diminishes God’s role as
Creator.
2.
Conflict with Biblical Literalism
Accepting
evolution might require reinterpreting parts of the Bible metaphorically, which
some see as compromising the inerrancy of Scripture.
3.
Moral and Philosophical Concerns
Creationists
argue that if humans are the product of evolution, it challenges the idea of
humans being uniquely made in God’s image, potentially undermining human
dignity and moral responsibility.
4.
Scientific Skepticism
Some
creationists question the validity of evolutionary evidence, such as the fossil
record and genetic data, often attributing gaps or uncertainties to flaws in
the theory.
My
Perspective on this Discussion:
The
apparent conflict between creationism and evolution arises not from the
evidence itself but from differing interpretations of the origins and purpose
of life. Here are some points to consider:
- Science and Faith Address Different Questions:
Science
explains the "how" of natural processes, while faith addresses the
"why" of existence. Evolution and creation are not necessarily
mutually exclusive but can complement each other in a holistic worldview.
- The Bible and Scientific Knowledge. Genesis was
written for an ancient audience with limited scientific understanding. Its
purpose was to convey profound theological truths (e.g., God as the
Creator) rather than detailed scientific mechanisms.
- LUCA and Genesis: A Bridge. The idea of LUCA aligns
with the concept of a single origin for life, a point where creation and
science could intersect. From there, the evolutionary process could unfold
under divine guidance, leading to the diversity of life we see today.
- Open-Minded Dialogue. Both creationists and
evolutionists can benefit from open-minded discussions, focusing on shared
awe for the complexity of life rather than on divisive interpretations.
I
believe I have given a balanced and thoughtful approach that highlights
the possibility of bridging the gap between creationists and evolutionists. The
ancient writers of Genesis communicated profound truths about creation in a way
accessible to their audience, and modern science has expanded our understanding
of the mechanisms behind those truths.
In my
view, the narrative of Genesis and the findings of evolutionary biology can
coexist as complementary perspectives—one rooted in divine purpose and the
other in natural processes. The journey to understanding life’s origins is not
just about choosing sides but appreciating the mystery and wonder of creation,
however it came to be.
I think
the problem is, scientists look at the age of earth and life on it in terms of
4.5 billion years ago, and the evolution of life in geological time scale divided
into eons, eras, periods, and epochs based on significant events in Earth's
history, and life can only be possible when conditions became suitable to
support life. The oldest known fossils, however, were 3.7 billion years old,
not a day in age. But I think it is very wrong for us to use billions of years
as a yardstick for us to compare the timescale of God who is eternal as it
clearly written:
“For a
thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a
watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4).
Under
such a revelation, a day of creation or evolution was just a day in the sight
of God, but billions of years for us. I think that’s where the conflict begins.
Else, if we can accept that, the stages of life evolution in terms of billions
of years for us was just a day for God – “a watch in the night” Then everything
should go well for both the creationists and the evolutionists. Much of the
conflict between creationists and evolutionists arises from differences in how
we interpret time, particularly in relation to the divine.
Reconciling
Divine Time and Human Time
The
Bible itself suggests a very different concept of time for God compared to
humans. The verse from Psalm 90:4 captures this profound truth: God, being
eternal, operates on a timescale that transcends our human understanding.
For
humans, billions of years are incomprehensibly long, but for an eternal God,
they could indeed be “as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the
night.” This perspective offers a compelling way to bridge the gap between:
1.
The billions of years required for life to evolve on Earth, according to
science.
2.
The "days" of creation described in Genesis.
The
"Day-Age" Interpretation of Genesis
This
idea aligns closely with the Day-Age Theory, which interprets the six days of
creation not as literal 24-hour days, but as long epochs or periods of time.
Under this interpretation:
Each
"day" represents a stage of creation that aligns with significant
geological and biological milestones.
This
allows for the billions of years required for Earth's formation, the emergence
of life, and its gradual evolution, while still affirming God’s role as
Creator.
If both
creationists and evolutionists accepted this broader, non-literal
interpretation of time, much of the tension between the two perspectives could
be alleviated.
Harmonizing
Creation and Evolution:
My
framework offers a way to integrate the two views without diminishing the
truths of either, namely:
- Creationists could embrace the idea that God’s days
are metaphorical and reflect divine epochs, allowing room for the vast
timescales observed by scientists.
- Evolutionists could view the Genesis account as a
poetic narrative describing creation in a manner comprehensible to ancient
people, rather than a scientific textbook.
Both
sides could then focus on the shared wonder of life’s complexity and origins,
rather than dwelling on their differences.
God’s
Eternal Perspective: It’s worth noting that the Bible frequently emphasizes
God’s transcendence over time.
2 Peter
3:8 reinforces Psalm 90:4: “With the Lord a day is like a thousand
years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
This
suggests that God's creative processes, as described in Genesis, could very
well span billions of years by human reckoning, yet be instantaneous or brief
from God’s eternal perspective.
A
Unified View is required. If we accept the possibility that God’s
"days" in Genesis are epochs, the timeline of creation in Genesis
could align seamlessly with the scientific timeline of Earth's history:
- The formation of light and the separation of waters
(Genesis 1:1–10) could represent the early stages of Earth’s formation,
from the Big Bang to the cooling of the Earth’s surface and the formation
of oceans.
- The emergence of plants (Genesis 1:11–13) coincides
with the development of photosynthesis and the first vegetation.
- The appearance of aquatic life and birds (Genesis
1:20–23) aligns with the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of flight.
- The creation of land animals and humans (Genesis
1:24–27) corresponds to the rise of mammals and the eventual emergence of
Homo sapiens.
Under
this interpretation, the Bible and science are not in conflict but instead tell
the same story from different perspectives—one through divine revelation, and
the other through the lens of human discovery.
My
Final Thoughts:
I think
we need to reconcile God’s eternal nature with scientific timescales. If
both creationists and evolutionists could embrace this broader understanding of
time and purpose, it would pave the way for a more harmonious dialogue. I
believe my approach as I write my thoughts in this understanding here, both as a trained and qualified evolutionist, and a creationist by faith, is a deep respect for both faith and
science, acknowledging their complementary roles in understanding the universe (astronomy)
Summary:
Reconciling
the two perspectives with Genesis as a framework compatible with evolution presents
a sequential creation narrative that intriguingly aligns with the evolutionary
timeline:
- Light and separation of water (verses 1–10):
Formation of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
- Vegetation (verse 11): The emergence of
photosynthesis, enabling plants to thrive.
- Aquatic life and birds (verses 20–22): Early marine
organisms evolving, followed by reptiles and birds.
- Land animals and humans (verses 24–27): The rise of
mammals and eventually Homo sapiens.
This
pattern parallels the evolutionary stages, suggesting that the Bible could be
seen as presenting a simplified account of creation for an ancient audience,
conveying truths through a framework they could understand.
This will
show our profound ability to see harmony where others see conflict, our
insights about the relationship between faith and science are not only wise but
also profoundly unifying.
The Bible
is not intended as a scientific manual but as a spiritual guide to reveal God’s
relationship with humanity and the path to salvation. The Church and scientists could find common
ground by acknowledging the differing purposes of Scripture and science—is both
practical and uplifting. Such harmony would indeed foster mutual respect,
opening the door to a world of shared learning and peace.
Our
thoughts will demonstrate great wisdom not just scientific knowledge, and an
openness of heart and mind. If only more
individuals in both the realms of science and faith adopted, I believe is my balanced and insightful perspective, the world
would undoubtedly benefit.
It
would be worth far more than a billion years of thanks to me for the current
Chinese New Year in her 3rd Day if they can reconcile harmoniously
ju-boo lim
Postdoctoral in Astronomy (Oxford)
Postdoctoral in Unravelling The Mystery of Life - Evolution (Cambridge)
