Our last common ancestor, shown by silent mutations

[Papias]

Note that the evolutionary trees shown by silent mutations are not consistent with the "common design" argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

http://theconversation.com/study-tr...e-started-in-a-hydrothermal-environment-62924

"Sadly, without a time machine, there is no way to directly verify these results. Nevertheless, this information will now be of great interest, not least to those scientists wishing to use the information to inform their bottom-up experiments in recreating modern forms of primitive life. But it will not be easy, given the requirement for high temperature, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and explosive hydrogen gas."

Of course the "bottom-up" belief is not consistent with the "top-down" creation belief.
The principle of continuity is the religious belief that drives ToE.

 

[mark kennedy]

Note that the evolutionary trees shown by silent mutations are not consistent with the "common design" argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

Papias

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

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

http://theconversation.com/study-tr...e-started-in-a-hydrothermal-environment-62924


Of course the "bottom-up" belief is not consistent with the "top-down" creation belief.
The principle of continuity is the religious belief that drives ToE.

An interesting pejorative you use against "science", calling it "religious". Do you really think calling a thing "religious" is to criticize it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

Well, considering that simple one celled life forms reproduce by simply dividing themselves, then, in a way, the first such life is still alive this very day (although many of its clones have, of course, died.) And, indeed, your germ cells are also of the same line, having lived continuously since first life . . .

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, considering that simple one celled life forms reproduce by simply dividing themselves, then, in a way, the first such life is still alive this very day (although many of its clones have, of course, died.) And, indeed, your germ cells are also of the same line, having lived continuously since first life . . .

I've never seen a recapitulation agreement from germ cell. There is a reason for that, the only place they come from are host parents. This is a homology argument that recapitulates based on commonality. I haven't had a chance to look closely but the simplified genomics have my attention.

 

[mark kennedy]

http://theconversation.com/study-tr...e-started-in-a-hydrothermal-environment-62924


Of course the "bottom-up" belief is not consistent with the "top-down" creation belief.
The principle of continuity is the religious belief that drives ToE.

There was a physist on NPR. The Ted radio hour talking about the low entropy (chaos), thus the high state of order in the wake of the Big Bang. It was in this time frame that he suggested life evolved. There's a better explanation or at lest an alternate one. I some times wonder if the think that possibility will go away if they ignore it long enough.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I've never seen a recapitulation agreement from germ cell. There is a reason for that, the only place they come from are host parents. This is a homology argument that recapitulates based on commonality. I haven't had a chance to look closely but the simplified genomics have my attention.

But host parents evolved from earlier species, which going back evolved from single celled life, first life . . . so it has to be so, if all life is of common descent.

 

[Smidlee]

An interesting pejorative you use against "science", calling it "religious". Do you really think calling a thing "religious" is to criticize it?

Not against science but the religious belief (principle of continuity) behind the so called science.
I'm just pointed out two opposing religious views. Bottom-up and the principle of continuity are the religious worldviews which modern science is based on.
Science is still the product of the human mind.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think I should add that I was under the impression that they were comparing the genomes of living creatures with the common genes I mentioned earlier. As it turns out all they did was isolate the genes all living things (at least on a very large scale) have in common. They pointed that out to me in the common forum so I thought I would mention it here.

 

[ElxDalto]

This article references the age of the Earth, as if it were known.