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

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This intrigued me:

only 355 (genes) met their criteria for having probably originated in Luca, the joint ancestor of bacteria and archaea. (Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things)​

How interesting that the Last Universal Common Ancestor is still alive, living, 'in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes', and doing fine. They must have taken really good care of themselves, four billion years and they are still the same yet ancestors to all life. Darwinian recapitulation, pure and simple.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You sure didn't read very carefully, did you?

"The 355 genes pointed quite precisely to an organism that lived in the conditions found in deep sea vents, the gassy, metal-laden, intensely hot plumes caused by seawater interacting with magma erupting through the ocean floor."

Now why would they be using the past tense for something which is still alive?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You sure didn't read very carefully, did you?

"The 355 genes pointed quite precisely to an organism that lived in the conditions found in deep sea vents, the gassy, metal-laden, intensely hot plumes caused by seawater interacting with magma erupting through the ocean floor."

Now why would they be using the past tense for something which is still alive?
Apparently you didn't read the title and don't get the concept of Darwinian homology. Those are the genes that all life have in common. The article is pretty candid, perhaps you need to actually read the article before your posts reveal your lack of comprehension. Its like Heakles embryos with the slits everyone thinks are gills. they're actually ear holes, but Darwinianism never dies it just blends with whatever the current evidence happens to be.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Apparently you didn't read the title and don't get the concept of Darwinian homology. Those are the genes that all life have in common. The article is pretty candid, perhaps you need to actually read the article before your posts reveal your lack of comprehension. Its like Heakles embryos with the slits everyone thinks are gills. they're actually ear holes, but Darwinianism never dies it just blends with whatever the current evidence happens to be.
None of which has anything at all to do with the false statement you made in the first post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This intrigued me:

only 355 (genes) met their criteria for having probably originated in Luca, the joint ancestor of bacteria and archaea. (Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things)​

How interesting that the Last Universal Common Ancestor is still alive, living, 'in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes', and doing fine. They must have taken really good care of themselves, four billion years and they are still the same yet ancestors to all life. Darwinian recapitulation, pure and simple.

Have a nice day :)
Mark

Citation please? I'd like to see your sources which state that said organism still exists today.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Citation please? I'd like to see your sources which state that said organism still exists today.

Reading it again, I think he is trying to say (although very badly expressed) that LUCA is not prebiotic. You know the creationist anthem, "You can't get life from non life." It's "still alive" meaning that it's still a life form.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Reading it again, I think he is trying to say (although very badly expressed) that LUCA is not prebiotic. You know the creationist anthem, "You can't get life from non life." It's "still alive" meaning that it's still a life form.

No. I think you hit the nail on the head in post #2. He badly misinterpreted that paragraph. It's the only way this sentence:

They must have taken really good care of themselves, four billion years and they are still the same yet ancestors to all life.

makes any sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Whart are you taking about?
I'm talking about your failure to support your statement in the first post, "How interesting that the Last Universal Common Ancestor is still alive, living, 'in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes'."
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Citation please? I'd like to see your sources which state that said organism still exists today.
ok, now I get it, this isn't real it's hypothetical Thought they found a commonality in the extremiphiles living in those under water vents. Its all speculation, thought they might have had something tangible here. Just one step removed from angiogenesis.

Disappointing but I was just interested in making the article available on the common forum.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No. I think you hit the nail on the head in post #2. He badly misinterpreted that paragraph. It's the only way this sentence:



makes any sense.
Actually I misread it. Thought they had linked the hydrophiles to the genes they isolated. Turns out it just speculation. At a glance the article seems to breeze over the details and the paper looks like a clinic on basic biotic functions.

Should of known it was going to be ghosts in the fog.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Reading it again, I think he is trying to say (although very badly expressed) that LUCA is not prebiotic. You know the creationist anthem, "You can't get life from non life." It's "still alive" meaning that it's still a life form.
Oh I have my own anthem, it's more like you can't get here from there. That's not even an option here if you can't identify an actual functional genome.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,458.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Mark, given that you made an egregious error in a bizarre misreading of a clearly worded article, would you consider the possibility that some of your perception of evolutionary theory may be based upon similar misinterpretation and careless reading of such theory? If not, why not?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Mark, given that you made an egregious error in a bizarre misreading of a clearly worded article, would you consider the possibility that some of your perception of evolutionary theory may be based upon similar misinterpretation and careless reading of such theory? If not, why not?

I thought it was comparative genomics, it was really just conjecture. This is what threw me:

The 355 genes pointed quite precisely to an organism that lived in the conditions found in deep sea vents, the gassy, metal-laden, intensely hot plumes caused by seawater interacting with magma erupting through the ocean floor.

Deep sea vents are surrounded by exotic life-forms and, with their extreme chemistry, have long seemed places where life might have originated. The 355 genes ascribable to Luca include some that metabolize hydrogen as a source of energy as well as a gene for an enzyme called reverse gyrase, found only in microbes that live at extremely high temperatures. (Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things)
This was all just speculation, yea I misread it but now I'm just disappointed. Thought they actually had something substantive here.

I was thinking that this could be the basis for something like what Richard Dawkins did in the Ancestors Tale. Starting with the last universal common ancestor and looking at what would have had to happen. If you could actually compare the genomes of these extremaphiles to other bacteria there might be something tangible.

Turns out it was nothing, my bad.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,458.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Have a nice day :)
Mark
Thank you for your kind wish. What might help convert it to reality would be if you took the time to answer my question - the one you completely ignored. I'll try to make it clearer and more concise. Given that you got this hopelessly wrong, is it not possible that a lot of what you think you know about evolution you also have hopelessly wrong? If you don't think that, why not?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Thank you for your kind wish. What might help convert it to reality would be if you took the time to answer my question - the one you completely ignored. I'll try to make it clearer and more concise. Given that you got this hopelessly wrong, is it not possible that a lot of what you think you know about evolution you also have hopelessly wrong? If you don't think that, why not?

I'm ignoring you question because because I miss read an article you want to indict my entire understanding of something I have been into for over a decade. I've seen some pretty sweeping fallacies but it never ceases to amaze me how you guys can beg the question of proof so shamelessly or focus on ad hominem attacks do obsessively.

I was on my way out the door, encountered the article and miss read it, posted the OP, and that's all there is to it. Move on!

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,458.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'm ignoring you question because because I miss read an article you want to indict my entire understanding of something I have been into for over a decade.
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.

I've seen some pretty sweeping fallacies but it never ceases to amaze me how you guys can beg the question of proof so shamelessly
Please identify a single instance where I have done this.

..... or focus on ad hominem attacks do obsessively.
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.

I was on my way out the door, encountered the article and miss read it, posted the OP, and that's all there is to it. Move on!
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0