Meet LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Still Alive!

[mark kennedy]

1. Do you understand that I have not "indicted your entire understanding", rather I have asked you if your misreading may have been part of a deeper misunderstanding? I am trying to determine if you consider that a possibility. If I were indicting your understanding I would have stated unambiguously that you lacked specific understanding in specific areas.
2. And yet you think I indicted your understanding. That is an additional snipped of evidence suggesting that an indictment may be appropriate in the future.
3. I may be confusing you with another member, but I don't see much indication you have absorbed much in those ten years.

No what you are doing is dwelling on an ad hominem, I have never seen one of you guys recover from it.

Please identify a single instance where I have done this.

I doubt I could find a single instance where you haven't

Pointing out deficiencies in your knowledge or skill sets, or seeking to explore possible deficiencies in your knowledge or skill sets, do not constitute ad hominem attacks. If I suggest your arguments are flawed because you are ugly, that would be an ad hominem. If I said your argument was flawed because you were demonstrably ignorant of a key fact related to the argument it would not be an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that you appear not to understand this is not an ad hominem attack; it is a factual observation.

But you have no idea what my understanding is, you haven't bothered to inquire. The subject of every post is me, rather then the actual topic and you are pounding one point to a bloody pulp. That's clearly, to the man, it's an argument that never happened.

It is telling that in the ten years you have "been into it" you have not learned that sloppy methods are inappropriate in science, even for amateur commentary. But I applaud your honesty in admitting the deficiency.

You got a nerve calling someone sloppy and you don't even know what the word 'science' means. You think it's ridiculing religious conviction but science for you is little more then an excuse pedantic fallacious logic. You haven't made a single argument, must less a scientific, and you think that makes you esoteric some how? The difference between me and you is I don't mind admitting an honest mistake while you pursue these empty pedantic rhetoric in circles endlessly. Round and round he goes, where he stops no body knows.

You know the difference between you and me, I thought they had found an organism simpler then bacteria and archaea, I should have known better. You continue to believe there was an ancestor to them both without proof and without anything substantive or scientific to support it. The big difference is that I can be mistaken, make a correction and move on. You really have nothing in your posts except rude personal remarks, it's all you want to talk about because it's all you can talk about. This false assumption of universal common descent has created the ultimate myth, the ancient pagans could not have conceived a myth of such epic proportions. What is truly astonishing is that they can compel so many to blindly assume that it must be possible for bacteria and archaea to have a common ancestor.

It was silly of me to think they actually had something more then the same old a priori assumption. Foolish really but I can see now that it's all presupposition and dogma, you never will.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Ophiolite]

This is my last post to you on this topic, but certain points merit being made.

No what you are doing is dwelling on an ad hominem, I have never seen one of you guys recover from it.

This response indicates very clearly that you do not understand what an ad hominem is. However, we shall say no more about your ignorance on this point. It is clearly recorded in this thread for any perceptive reader to see.

And please, if you sincerely wish me to "have a nice day" please stop stereotyping me as "one of you guys". It is simultaneously inaccurate and offensive.

I doubt I could find a single instance where you haven't

Then please be good enough to point to one such instance. Failure to do so will suggest that your accusation is baseless. (Which it is.)

But you have no idea what my understanding is, you haven't bothered to inquire. The subject of every post is me, rather then the actual topic and you are pounding one point to a bloody pulp. That's clearly, to the man, it's an argument that never happened.

Your apparent understanding is revealed in what you write.

The overarching topic is the creationist view of evolutionary theory. To discuss that topic effectively it is relevant to be aware of the credentials of the participants in that discussion. Your ability to comprehend evolutionary theory (And my ability) are relevant. Your silly mistake relating to the research being discussed in this thread and the amount of time you took to accept you were mistaken are strongly suggestive. Arm waving on your part does not alter that fact.

You got a nerve calling someone sloppy and you don't even know what the word 'science' means. You think it's ridiculing religious conviction but science for you is little more then an excuse pedantic fallacious logic. You haven't made a single argument, must less a scientific, and you think that makes you esoteric some how? The difference between me and you is I don't mind admitting an honest mistake while you pursue these empty pedantic rhetoric in circles endlessly. Round and round he goes, where he stops no body knows.

Please present evidence that I do not know what science means.
(Your next sentence does not parse without ambiguity.)
Please present evidence that I think science is about ridiculing religious conviction, or should be used to ridicule religious conviction. (For the record I don't.)
I don't think I am esoteric, so that's yet one more error on your part.

We are going round in circles because you are unwilling to consider the possibility that your grasp of evolutionary theory may not be as sound as you think it is. Nor are you willing to recognise that your actions in this instance were sloppy. (And for the record, an objective description of behaviour as sloppy when it is sloppy is not an ad hominem.)

You know the difference between you and me, I thought they had found an organism simpler then bacteria and archaea, I should have known better. You continue to believe there was an ancestor to them both without proof and without anything substantive or scientific to support it. The big difference is that I can be mistaken, make a correction and move on. You really have nothing in your posts except rude personal remarks, it's all you want to talk about because it's all you can talk about. This false assumption of universal common descent has created the ultimate myth, the ancient pagans could not have conceived a myth of such epic proportions. What is truly astonishing is that they can compel so many to blindly assume that it must be possible for bacteria and archaea to have a common ancestor.

It was silly of me to think they actually had something more then the same old a priori assumption. Foolish really but I can see now that it's all presupposition and dogma, you never will.

Please desist from telling me what I think.
Please desist of telling me what I believe.
And please desist from wishing me a nice day.

In our next discussion, on some other thread, I shall be focusing on the material content of the topic.

 

[LisaPar]

Whart are you taking about?

You know exactly what he is talking about, even I can see that you doctor things to suit yourself and what you want to believe, what you and other creationists here do is nothing short of lying. [not for Jesus but for yourselves.]

 

[mark kennedy]

You know exactly what he is talking about, even I can see that you doctor things to suit yourself and what you want to believe, what you and other creationists here do is nothing short of lying. [not for Jesus but for yourselves.]

Lying about what? I thought the found something, something living in underwater vents but it turns out it was all hypothetical. Like most of this stuff is supposition and speculation.

 

[dad]

​

This was all just speculation, yea I misread it but now I'm just disappointed. Thought they actually had something substantive here....

I see they now found out how man's 'ancestor' Lucy died...she fell from a tree like a good monkey would!

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/...-caused-death-of-Lucy-the-famed-fossil-466368

 

[mark kennedy]

I see they now found out how man's 'ancestor' Lucy died...she fell from a tree like a good monkey would!

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/...-caused-death-of-Lucy-the-famed-fossil-466368

Interesting, a knuckle dragging tree climbing ape. Her cranial capacity was consistent with apes, a little small as I recall.

 

[dad]

Interesting, a knuckle dragging tree climbing ape. Her cranial capacity was consistent with apes, a little small as I recall.

Funny how the godless dreamers fanatically try to insert the word ancestor in whenever the little ape is mentioned..in reverent terms. Those who teach kids like that are perverts far as I am concerned.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is my last post to you on this topic, but certain points merit being made.

This response indicates very clearly that you do not understand what an ad hominem is. However, we shall say no more about your ignorance on this point. It is clearly recorded in this thread for any perceptive reader to see.

Who are you trying to convince?

And please, if you sincerely wish me to "have a nice day" please stop stereotyping me as "one of you guys". It is simultaneously inaccurate and offensive.

Then please be good enough to point to one such instance. Failure to do so will suggest that your accusation is baseless. (Which it is.)

Your apparent understanding is revealed in what you write.

Your trolling,I say have a nice day because I like to be civil.

The overarching topic is the creationist view of evolutionary theory. To discuss that topic effectively it is relevant to be aware of the credentials of the participants in that discussion. Your ability to comprehend evolutionary theory (And my ability) are relevant. Your silly mistake relating to the research being discussed in this thread and the amount of time you took to accept you were mistaken are strongly suggestive. Arm waving on your part does not alter that fact.

Opposing a religious doctrine you know nothing about does not make you an apologist for evolution. You think it does and you have done nothing to even speak to evolutionary biology. Your complaint is bogus.

Please present evidence that I do not know what science means.
(Your next sentence does not parse without ambiguity.)
Please present evidence that I think science is about ridiculing religious conviction, or should be used to ridicule religious conviction. (For the record I don't.)
I don't think I am esoteric, so that's yet one more error on your part.

I don't have to present any evidence for a lack of evidence, it's obvious.

We are going round in circles because you are unwilling to consider the possibility that your grasp of evolutionary theory may not be as sound as you think it is. Nor are you willing to recognise that your actions in this instance were sloppy. (And for the record, an objective description of behaviour as sloppy when it is sloppy is not an ad hominem.)

I misunderstood an article, your making mountains out of molehills.

Please desist from telling me what I think.
Please desist of telling me what I believe.
And please desist from wishing me a nice day.

In our next discussion, on some other thread, I shall be focusing on the material content of the topic.

I will post as I see fit, you take it any way you like.

 

[mark kennedy]

Funny how the godless dreamers fanatically try to insert the word ancestor in whenever the little ape is mentioned..in reverent terms. Those who teach kids like that are perverts far as I am concerned.

It fascinates me that it has made no difference in Christian conviction. Have you noticed that not one of them has tried to defend the premise of the article, I have.

 

[sfs]

It fascinates me that it has made no difference in Christian conviction. Have you noticed that not one of them has tried to defend the premise of the article, I have.

Defend the premise of the article from what? Has someone offered some kind of argument against it?

 

[dad]

It fascinates me that it has made no difference in Christian conviction. Have you noticed that not one of them has tried to defend the premise of the article, I have.

What would one expect of religious fanatics but to hide from the Light?

 

[mark kennedy]

Defend the premise of the article from what? Has someone offered some kind of argument against it?

There is nothing to affirm, defend or deny, the thread was derailed immediately again. These trollers think it's scientific feigning moral indignation. Meanwhile I've been browsing around learning about various bacteria and theoretical minimal genomics. I see no reason to bother posting details because I'm too busy fielding inflammatory personal remarks.

 

[sfs]

There is nothing to affirm, defend or deny, the thread was derailed immediately again. These trollers think it's scientific feigning moral indignation. Meanwhile I've been browsing around learning about various bacteria and theoretical minimal genomics. I see no reason to bother posting details because I'm too busy fielding inflammatory personal remarks.

So why did you take the time to point out the fact that no one had tried to defend the article, if there was no reason to defend it? Have you noticed that no one has tried to translate your OP into Sanskrit, or that no one has even once mentioned Burnt Njal's Saga in this thread?

 

[mark kennedy]

What would one expect of religious fanatics but to hide from the Light?

I'd say zealots, true believers, they act like the villagers confronting the Frankinstein monster.

 

[mark kennedy]

So why did you take the time to point out the fact that no one had tried to defend the article, if there was no reason to defend it? Have you noticed that no one has tried to translate your OP into Sanskrit, or that no one has even once mentioned Burnt Njal's Saga in this thread?

I took the time to point out the thread is one ad hominem after another, Not one post, not one comment on topic. Yea I misread the article, silly but it happens. Its actually an interesting topic in untill it gets smothered is fallacious rhetoric.

 

[VirOptimus]

I took the time to point out the thread is one ad hominem after another, Not one post, not one comment on topic. Yea I misread the article, silly but it happens. Its actually an interesting topic in till it gets smothered is fallacious rhetoric.

No, it was funny that you did misunderstood the article. Your posturing now is even funnier.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it was funny that you did misunderstood the article. Your posturing now is even funnier.

I'm just waiting for the trolls to get bored, maybe have an adult conversation.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm just waiting for the trolls to get bored, maybe have an adult conversation.

Projection.

 

[dad]

Ha.

I'd say zealots, true believers, they act like the villagers confronting the Frankinstein monster.

Right, true believers in a belief system other than the truth. Their ancestor supposedly fell from a tree, and before that, was a deep sea thermal vent dweller. Funny how many so called bible believers claim science is right, and that God just created that way.

 

[dad]

No, it was funny that you did misunderstood the article. Your posturing now is even funnier.

Whether he did 'misunderstood the article' or not, why don't you show us the simple gist of what it 'really' says and means?