The Applications of LUCA

[Occams Barber]

That is a very interesting reply. Do you have a background in biology? I don't remember.

It would be nice to know if biologists agree with you. If they do, I'd rephrase the second question: Is there anything LUCA contributes to the structure of evolutionary theory?

You're now the second to say that, but IIRC you're not a biologist. Or do I remember incorrectly? If my memory is correct, would you happen to have a citation that biologists think this as well?

Because I didn't know biologists considered LUCA a conclusion.

Perhaps you should return to your OP and add a shingle:

ONLY BIOLOGISTS NEED REPLY
​

Perhaps you would be better taking your query to a Website replete with (Evolutionary) Biologists

​

OB

 

[J_B_]

Perhaps you should return to your OP and add a shingle:

ONLY BIOLOGISTS NEED REPLY
​

Perhaps you would be better taking your query to a Website replete with (Evolutionary) Biologists

You may be right. If you saw my reply to @Frank Robert , his suggestion was a good one.

 

[J_B_]

[edit] I think I'm in the wrong place. My apologies if I wasted anyone's time, but thanks to those who answered the question anyway. It helped.

 

[Bradskii]

That is a very interesting reply. Do you have a background in biology? I don't remember.

It would be nice to know if biologists agree with you. If they do, I'd rephrase the second question: Is there anything LUCA contributes to the structure of evolutionary theory?

I can only repeat what @Subduction Zone said - that there was a LUCA is a natural conclusion of the evolutionary process. We can't take any information from it and work forwards. We can only assume its characteristics by working backwards. There must have been an organism from which everthing alive today is descended, all life has certain common characteristics, therefore this organism must have had some of them.

It serves no practical purpose. No more than pointing out that you and I have a common ancestor somewhere in the past.

 

[Astrid]

Deleted

 

[Frank Robert]

I would like to have a discussion with biologists about LUCA in light of some other findings in biology. Not a discussion about ID. There would be no need to invoke God in the discussion. Not about things I, who am not a biologist, have supposedly discovered because I haven't discovered anything. Not my philosophy of biology, but accepted philosophy of biology. Not a discussion where I eventually challenge evolution playing any role in life's current diversity, because I don't intend to do that. Just a discussion about LUCA in light of other published findings by biologists.

I think you can find what you want at Peaceful Science. You can join and create topics by posting something like a link to an article and a brief statement of you want explore or just a question like "How does the LUCA contribute to the theory of evolution? The first time you post you be welcomed and you will be asked to introduce yourself, you can say as little or as much as you like. You don't need to be a scientist or a professional to join and post.

 

[Occams Barber]

Every now and then I have an epiphany. It's cool to have that moment of clarity, but afterwards I often feel stupid I didn't understand before.

As I was thinking about my LUCA question and my hope that some biologists would participate, it clicked that it is somewhat odd biologists are here at all. Biologists are obviously not going to ask scientific questions in this forum. They'll seek other biologists in a professional setting. That means in a scientific sense they are only here to give answers ... though they could be here for other reasons - understanding creationists, to get an anecdotal feel for the balance between creationism and theistic evolution, for camaraderie of some sort, etc. That fits well with the book I mentioned in the OP, Monad to Man along with another book Rhetorical Darwinism. The first deals with the personal opinions of biologists about evolutionism (which is separate from evolutionary science), and the second deals with how biologists interact with the lay public.

Beyond that, it's also a low probability theistic evolutionists are going to ask questions because they already agree with evolution.

Therefore, the vast majority of questions are going to come from Christians who believe in some form of special creation. Given this means a tension with evolution, there will always be a subtext (intended or not) of a challenge to evolution's veracity. ALWAYS. That was my epiphany.

If that's true, why would a biologist ever listen? And I mean, when would they listen in a manner where they are not motivated to refute what is said? That's not meant to be a slap against biologists. It's a perfectly understandable thing to do.

I would like to have a discussion with biologists about LUCA in light of some other findings in biology. Not a discussion about ID. There would be no need to invoke God in the discussion. Not about things I, who am not a biologist, have supposedly discovered because I haven't discovered anything. Not my philosophy of biology, but accepted philosophy of biology. Not a discussion where I eventually challenge evolution playing any role in life's current diversity, because I don't intend to do that. Just a discussion about LUCA in light of other published findings by biologists.

I didn't expect to have that discussion here. I realize it would need to take place in a different setting. But posting here does help me sort out my thoughts and make sure I've got straight what I would want to discuss.

Still, if the biologist knew my theological position, why would they ever talk to me about such a thing? The subtext will always be there. Maybe the aforementioned "Peaceful Science", but still ... well, anyway ... thanks to everyone for answering my questions and helping me out, regardless of where it goes from here.

You do waffle on a lot JB

Some time ago I suggested that you came across as a clandestine Creationist looking for a Gotcha moment. One reason was the babble-padding going on in your posts - say nothing by saying a lot.

I still have a suspicion that I may have been right although I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if you know what you think. Why for instance would you quote (in the OP) a book review written 25 years ago? Even the quote is a little strange. This level of selectivity suggests you were looking for a bit of confirmation for an existing bias.

Go and play with the experts but, before you do, decide if you're looking for info about evolution or LUCA or whatever or fishing for selective facts to bolster some personal interpretation of Creationism.

And ask direct questions without the waffle.

OB

 

[J_B_]

You do waffle on a lot JB

Some time ago I suggested that you came across as a clandestine Creationist looking for a Gotcha moment. One reason was the babble-padding going on in your posts - say nothing by saying a lot.

I still have a suspicion that I may have been right although I'm increasingly beginning to wonder if you know what you think. Why for instance would you quote (in the OP) a book review written 25 years ago? Even the quote is a little strange. This level of selectivity suggests you were looking for a bit of confirmation for an existing bias.

Go and play with the experts but, before you do, decide if you're looking for info about evolution or LUCA or whatever or fishing for selective facts to bolster some personal interpretation of Creationism.

And ask direct questions without the waffle.

OB

I edited the post. Maybe it will work better now.

 

[AV1611VET]

It serves no practical purpose. No more than pointing out that you and I have a common ancestor somewhere in the past.

Do whales and bananas share a common ancestor?

 

[Shemjaza]

Do whales and bananas share a common ancestor?

Yes.

Does Hovind get to a useful point in your video?

 

[Frank Robert]

Do whales and bananas share a common ancestor?

That is an excellent example of Creationists laughing at their ignorance of common ancestry which unifies us all. Bananas, bacteria, whales, humans, etc. we are all family. Check it out for yourself at:
The OneZoom tree of life explorer...

An interactive map of the evolutionary links between all living things known to science. Discover your favourites, see which species are under threat, and be amazed by the diversity of life on earth.​

 

[AV1611VET]

Bananas, bacteria, whales, humans, etc. we are all family.

Only on paper.

These guys aren't in my family tree:

 

[Frank Robert]

Only on paper.

These guys aren't in my family tree:

Those guys look like cartoons and I agree cartoons are not in your tree of life. There is a scientific explanation supported by evidence for the tree of life, i.e. links between all living things. There is no creationist evidence for the evolutionary links between all living things known to science. You can disagree but you would be just demonstrating the creationists' ignorance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those guys look like cartoons and I agree cartoons are not in your tree of life.

You are correct.

They are the Banana Splits.

Personally, I couldn't stand them.

There is a scientific explanation supported by evidence for the tree of life, i.e. links between all living things.

There is no creationist evidence for the evolutionary links between all living things known to science.

Do you know why that is?

It's because we were created by a series of miracles.

Do you know what that means?

It means science and nature didn't apply.

Do you know what that means?

It means no evidence.

Zero ... zip ... none.

And just because there's no evidence for a common designer, doesn't mean we came by a common ancestor.

You can disagree but you would be just demonstrating the creationists' ignorance.

If creationists like me are ignorant of evolution, that's a Badge of Honor as far as I'm concerned.

It shows others that I'm more interested in the things of Heaven, than I am the things of Earth.

I don't study evolution Monday through Friday, then go sing ...

Oh Lord, my God
When I, in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder
Thy power throughout the universe displayed

... on Sunday.

 

[Frank Robert]

You are correct.

They are the Banana Splits.

Personally, I couldn't stand them.

If you used the One-Zoom link I provided you would be able to connect the dots using actual science

Do you know why that is?

It's because we were created by a series of miracles.

Do you know what that means?

It means science and nature didn't apply.

Do you know what that means?

It means no evidence.

Zero ... zip ... none.

And just because there's no evidence for a common designer, doesn't mean we came by a common ancestor.If creationists like me are ignorant of evolution, that's a Badge of Honor as far as I'm concerned.

You just provided the reason why science is silent on miracles. You are entitled to whatever you wish to believe.

It shows others that I'm more interested in the things of Heaven, than I am the things of Earth.

I don't see what the problem is. However, there is a problem with videos like the one you posted that are aimed at kids before they are able to understand the difference between scientific evidence and religious belief.

I don't study evolution Monday through Friday, then go sing ...

Oh Lord, my God
When I, in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder
Thy power throughout the universe displayed

... on Sunday.

No is pushing you to study evolution which does not mean you won't corrected when you post your misunderstanding of the ToE.

 

[Astrid]

That is an excellent example of Creationists laughing at their ignorance of common ancestry which unifies us all. Bananas, bacteria, whales, humans, etc. we are all family. Check it out for yourself at:
The OneZoom tree of life explorer...⁹

An interactive map of the evolutionary links between all living things known to science. Discover your favourites, see which species are under threat, and be amazed by the diversity of life on earth.​

It is easy ( also rather tacky and dishonest) to misrepresent
something.

 

[Frank Robert]

It is easy ( also rather tacky and dishonest) to misrepresent
something.

Can you be more specific? I don't what you are getting at.

 

[Astrid]

Can you be more specific? I don't what you are getting at.

Sorry, its not you doing it.
You were responding to it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I am constantly ridiculed by evolutionists because I consider origin of life to be key to evolutionary theory. The reason is simple. The lack of OOL research progress undermines evolution's basis. Evolutionists don't have an answer so they condemn anyone who dares to disagree with them. You might assume from this that I reject evolution out of hand. And you would be right.

You should not be ridiculed but you are wrong. The evidences of evolution do not rest on how life began. However life began through natural or supernatural means does not erase the good evidence we have that supports evolution. It is like my daughter eating a lollipop. The fact that I do not know how the lollipop was made does not negate the fact that she is eating a lollipop.

 

[AV1611VET]

You just provided the reason why science is silent on miracles.

Riiight.

Unless that miracle is the Flood.

Then science will chime in and say:

"The Flood didn't happen, because it was a miracle we would expect to see evidence."