Is it a hoax?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Seemed...

Do you see how our processes - in thought and in practice - can distort the truth?

It's important to be aware of the potential cognitive errors and biases so we have a chance of spotting and/or avoiding them. Much of the scientific method is explicitly aimed at reducing their influence.

 

[Gene2memE]

Spent some time on Nature and PubMed. Fun 30 minutes.

The conclusion of biologists is that the hypothesis of universal common ancestry isn't even in dispute, although there is dispute over whether such a thing as a single organism Universal Common Ancestor actually existed or not. Bit of a back and forth over that, with some papers claiming its basically unknowable because of the gradualistic and artificial nature of the life/non-life distinction, and others claiming to have narrowed down some of LUCA's characteristics and found more plausible evidence supporting

Some indicative samples:

Kooinin and Wolf 2010:

A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.
​

Martins and Posada 2014:

A phylogenetic model selection test to quantify the evidence for the Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) of life forms was proposed recently (Theobald 2010), based on the comparison of the statistical support, using likelihoods, the Akaike Information Criterion or Bayes Factors, for two different phylogenetic models representing the UCA and the Independent Origins (IO) hypotheses (Sober and Steel 2002). In this test, the former is represented by a single phylogeny connecting all sequences, while the latter is depicted by several, independent phylogenetic trees (Figure 1). Importantly, in the original UCA test the same alignment was used to represent both hypotheses. When applied to a particular data set of 23 universally conserved proteins, the test strongly favored a UCA scenario.
​

Martins and Posada 2016:

The evidence for universal common ancestry (UCA) is vast and persuasive.​

Koskela and Annila 2012:

Genomic sequences across diverse species seem to align towards a common ancestry, eventually implying that eons ago some universal antecedent organism would have lived on the face of Earth. However, when evolution is understood not only as a biological process but as a general thermodynamic process, it becomes apparent that the quest for the last universal common ancestor is unattainable. Ambiguities in alignments are unavoidable because the driving forces and paths of evolution cannot be separated from each other. Thus tracking down life’s origin is by its nature a non-computable task. The thermodynamic tenet clarifies that evolution is a path-dependent process of least-time consumption of free energy. The natural process is without a demarcation line between animate and inanimate.
​

Weiss et al 2016:

The concept of a last universal common ancestor of all cells (LUCA, or the progenote) is central to the study of early evolution and life's origin, yet information about how and where LUCA lived is lacking. We investigated all clusters and phylogenetic trees for 6.1 million protein coding genes from sequenced prokaryotic genomes in order to reconstruct the microbial ecology of LUCA. Among 286,514 protein clusters, we identified 355 protein families (∼0.1%) that trace to LUCA by phylogenetic criteria. Because these proteins are not universally distributed, they can shed light on LUCA's physiology. Their functions, properties and prosthetic groups depict LUCA as anaerobic, CO2-fixing, H2-dependent with a Wood-Ljungdahl pathway, N2-fixing and thermophilic. LUCA's biochemistry was replete with FeS clusters and radical reaction mechanisms. Its cofactors reveal dependence upon transition metals, flavins, S-adenosyl methionine, coenzyme A, ferredoxin, molybdopterin, corrins and selenium. Its genetic code required nucleoside modifications and S-adenosyl methionine-dependent methylations. The 355 phylogenies identify clostridia and methanogens, whose modern lifestyles resemble that of LUCA, as basal among their respective domains. LUCA inhabited a geochemically active environment rich in H2, CO2 and iron. The data support the theory of an autotrophic origin of life involving the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway in a hydrothermal setting.
​

Asserting "The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO" is, IMO, the height of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.



Enjoy the reading.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It's important to be aware of the potential cognitive errors and biases so we have a chance of spotting and/or avoiding them. Much of the scientific method is explicitly aimed at reducing their influence.

I agree.

However, there are always exceptions. Just how involved and related those exceptions are is what helps to determine the validity of something, and the influence.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree.

However, there are always exceptions. Just how involved and related those exceptions are is what helps to determine the validity of something, and the influence.

Examples?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't have to rely upon public opinion. I have got the almost unanimous opinion of biologists world wide to go on. That sort of unanimity amongst people qualified to evaluate the evidence does not arise out of nowhere. The only get out open to creationists is to postulate a grand conspiracy theory amongst all the world's scientists, and, like all conspiracy theories, it is barking mad.

I thought Calvinists believed the Bible, and therefore the Genesis record? If Calvin taught that the Genesis Record of creation is true, then going against Calvin would stop you identifying yourself as a Calvinist, wouldn't it?

 

[lesliedellow]

I thought Calvinists believed the Bible, and therefore the Genesis record? If Calvin taught that the Genesis Record of creation is true, then going against Calvin would stop you identifying yourself as a Calvinist, wouldn't it?

Calvinists don't worship Calvin - not even the conservatives.

Furthermore, fundamentalists have a way of equating not interpreting the Bible in the way they do with not believing the Bible, and you should know all about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought Calvinists believed the Bible, and therefore the Genesis record? If Calvin taught that the Genesis Record of creation is true, then going against Calvin would stop you identifying yourself as a Calvinist, wouldn't it?

That claim would be as ignorant as claiming Lutherans followed Luther in all things. Luther was merely the start of the sect. Some Lutheran sects have no problem with the theory of evolution. And they definitely don't follow Luther. He was quite the anti-Semite in case you did not know.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Calvinists don't worship Calvin - not even the conservatives.

Furthermore, fundamentalists have a way of equating not interpreting the Bible in the way they do with not believing the Bible, and you should know all about that.

I just believe what the Bible says. I also spent three years doing an accredited MDiv which involved comprehensive and in-depth studies of books of the Bible, using accepted Hermaneutics. My essays and assignments were moderated and evaluated by highly qualified academics and so I am quite confident that I have a good grasp of what the Bible is all about.

I know that a lot of Biblical interpretation is twisted around to agree with some folk's theology. These are examples of making the Bible agree with one's theology; but that is a major difference between a person formulating their theology based on what the Bible actually says.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Examples?

No thanks. I am not going to get into these conversations anymore on these forums. It is too sensitive of a topic for some.

 

[bhsmte]

No thanks. I am not going to get into these conversations anymore on these forums. It is too sensitive of a topic for some.

Never mind then.

 

[Gene2memE]

I just believe what the Bible says. I also spent three years doing an accredited MDiv which involved comprehensive and in-depth studies of books of the Bible, using accepted Hermaneutics.

Did your Masters in Divinity include a comparative mythology component? Or was it of a completely literalist or maximalist bent?

My essays and assignments were moderated and evaluated by highly qualified academics and so I am quite confident that I have a good grasp of what the Bible is all about.

I'm interested. What does your "good grasp of what the Bible is all about" tell you about the following:

The formation and age of the universe
The formation and age of the earth
The process of the development of life
The development of homo sapiens

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Did your Masters in Divinity include a comparative mythology component? Or was it of a completely literalist or maximalist bent?



I'm interested. What does your "good grasp of what the Bible is all about" tell you about the following:

The formation and age of the universe
The formation and age of the earth
The process of the development of life
The development of homo sapiens

When a person does a divinity degree it is assumed that they have a Christian world-view and that the Genesis Record is true. The Bible is not a scientific text book and is not viewed that way.

If I wanted to learn more about the theory of evolution from a scientific point of view, I would have done a biological science degree. So, I have to acknowledge that in the area of the scientific basis for evolution, you have the drop on me.

And my ginger cat as shown in my avatar can't enlighten me as to where his ancestors come from because he is only concerned about where his next meal is coming from.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

And my ginger cat as shown in my avatar can't enlighten me as to where his ancestors come from because he is only concerned about where his next meal is coming from.

Or is he?

It is rumored cats are intergalactic surveillance scouts. They have already infiltrated the internets, and there are How-To Guides on how to train their humans.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Or is he?

It is rumored cats are intergalactic surveillance scouts. They have already infiltrated the internets, and there are How-To Guides on how to train their humans.

What are you doing with my Burmese cat on your head? Obviously he has the gift of transportation. I'll bet he will transport himself back home by the time I get back there. Did you know that my cats have the gift of hypnotism? At around 9:30pm all my three cats stare intently at me hypnotising me to feed them their evening meal. I find that I have this overwhelming impulse to fill their bowls with catfood!

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What are you doing with my Burmese cat on your head? Obviously he has the gift of transportation. I'll bet he will transport himself back home by the time I get back there. Did you know that my cats have the gift of hypnotism? At around 9:30pm all my three cats stare intently at me hypnotising me to feed them their evening meal. I find that I have this overwhelming impulse to fill their bowls with catfood!

My cat used to use level 5 glares, and I would know immediately the tasks I needed to perform - such as feeding, petting and then other assorted attention-focused activities devoted to the cat. I knew I didn't want to do it, but I couldn't help myself .

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a person does a divinity degree it is assumed that they have a Christian world-view and that the Genesis Record is true. The Bible is not a scientific text book and is not viewed that way.

Nope, someone sold you a bill of goods. Once again what school was this? It is beginning to sound like a mail order degree to me. There are quite a few denominations that accept the theory of evolution:
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

If I wanted to learn more about the theory of evolution from a scientific point of view, I would have done a biological science degree. So, I have to acknowledge that in the area of the scientific basis for evolution, you have the drop on me.

To round out your education you should have studied more than just the Bible. Any real college that I know of would have required that.

And my ginger cat as shown in my avatar can't enlighten me as to where his ancestors come from because he is only concerned about where his next meal is coming from.

Yep, cats are that way.

 

[Gene2memE]

When a person does a divinity degree it is assumed that they have a Christian world-view and that the Genesis Record is true. The Bible is not a scientific text book and is not viewed that way.

I disagree with the first sentence. For instance, the Jesuit priests that taught me religion through secondary school didn't operate under the assumption that "the Genesis Record is true" - they took it and taught it as both mythic and allegorical. Several of them had masters and doctorates in theology.

I guess you answered my question, at least obliquely. You ascribe to a literal interpretation of the bible.

If I wanted to learn more about the theory of evolution from a scientific point of view, I would have done a biological science degree. So, I have to acknowledge that in the area of the scientific basis for evolution, you have the drop on me.

I was trying to delve a little closer into how you view reality, so I can work out how to best frame my approach. Let me rephrase my questions:

Do you believe the universe was created in six literal days?
Do you believe the world is more than 10,000 years old?
Do you believe all animals (including man) were created in their present form?
Do you believe the Bible provides an accurate account of the formation of the universe, the earth and the natural world?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That claim would be as ignorant as claiming Lutherans followed Luther in all things. Luther was merely the start of the sect. Some Lutheran sects have no problem with the theory of evolution. And they definitely don't follow Luther. He was quite the anti-Semite in case you did not know.

Quite correct. There is a common misconception among many that Lutherans are "followers of Martin Luther", which isn't the case. Luther doesn't define Lutheranism, there were many ideas Luther had which are not accepted or even outright rejected by the Lutheran churches, such as Luther's antisemitism as you mention here; but also Luther's views on the Canon. Luther's Canon stripped the Deuterocanonicals from their ordinary place in the Old Testament and put them in their own appendix, and he likewise regarded several books of the New Testament Antilegomena as highly suspect and so he put them at the very end of his New Testament. For Lutherans Luther's opinion on the Canon is not accepted (it's not rejected either); and hence officially the Lutheran position on the Canon is that we have no official position--for Lutherans the Biblical Canon is, technically, open; more specifically the question of the canonical status of certain books remains an open question, including the Deuterocanonicals and New Testament Antilegomena.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then you'd better conclude it some other way -- like by faith.

Like I did with the cocktail and the interdimensional unicorn?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The conclusions drawn from the dig may be a mistake.

How?
The dating is wrong
AND the roman coins aren't really roman
AND the architecture in fact isn't roman
AND the mozaics aren't really roman
AND the pottery isn't really roman
...

Even though all of it corresponds to everything that is Roman?

The area dug for the foundations of one building does not confirm a settlement.

So, finding the actual settlement, does not confirm the existance of said settlement.

Uhu.


You people are hilarious.