The Applications of LUCA

[J_B_]

LUCA is an acronym for Last Universal Common Ancestor. I have 2 questions about this:

1) What are the applications of LUCA in evolutionary science? IOW is there a functional use? For example, is the genome of LUCA used to establish cladograms?

2) As stated here, "LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth, but rather the latest that is ancestral to all current existing life". Therefore, I would expect commonalities in life prior to LUCA to be closer to an assumption than a theorem. As such, I wouldn't expect functional applications of this prior life, but rather structural contributions to evolutionary theory. For example, that is the reason all life consists of the same 20 amino acids. Is there such a structural contribution and what is it?

If my examples are flawed in some way, or you don't understand the question, I would like to do our best to come to a mutual understanding.

Lastly, people always ask what motivates my questions. In this case, the question was sparked by a review of Monad to Man by Peter Bowler (American Scientist, vol.85, 1997). In that review he states, "The biomedical sciences have flourished because they are experimental and have direct practical applications. But their success is based on a profound lack of interest in the question of how organisms we study were formed. As long as we can fix the machines, we do not care how they were designed--and many rest content with the idea of a supernatural Designer. Evolution requires an interest in origins, and an acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them, which is simply not shared by many biologists."

Question #1 stems from the statement that "Evolution requires an interest in origins", and question #2 from the required "... acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them ..."

 

[Aussie Pete]

LUCA is an acronym for Last Universal Common Ancestor. I have 2 questions about this:

1) What are the applications of LUCA in evolutionary science? IOW is there a functional use? For example, is the genome of LUCA used to establish cladograms?

2) As stated here, "LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth, but rather the latest that is ancestral to all current existing life". Therefore, I would expect commonalities in life prior to LUCA to be closer to an assumption that a theorem. As such, I wouldn't expect functional applications of this prior life, but rather structural contributions to evolutionary theory. For example, that is the reason all life consists of the same 20 amino acids. Is there such a structural contribution and what is it?

If my examples are flawed in some way, or you don't understand the question, I would like to do our best to come to a mutual understanding.

Lastly, people always ask what motivates my questions. In this case, the question was sparked by a review of Monad to Man by Peter Bowler (American Scientist, vol.85, 1997). In that review he states, "The biomedical sciences have flourished because they are experimental and have direct practical applications. But their success is based on a profound lack of interest in the question of how organisms we study were formed. As long as we can fix the machines, we do not care how they were designed--and many rest content with the idea of a supernatural Designer. Evolution requires an interest in origins, and an acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them, which is simply not shared by many biologists."

Question #1 stems from the statement that "Evolution requires an interest in origins", and question #2 from the required "... acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them ..."

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.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

Can you point out a single specific difference in either the evidence or research into evolution on any scale if the LUCA turned out to be a miraculous creation?

I'm personally not aware of any, and if the nature of the origin of life doesn't change evolution then it can't be a necessary component.

 

[Shemjaza]

LUCA is an acronym for Last Universal Common Ancestor. I have 2 questions about this:

1) What are the applications of LUCA in evolutionary science? IOW is there a functional use? For example, is the genome of LUCA used to establish cladograms?

2) As stated here, "LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth, but rather the latest that is ancestral to all current existing life". Therefore, I would expect commonalities in life prior to LUCA to be closer to an assumption that a theorem. As such, I wouldn't expect functional applications of this prior life, but rather structural contributions to evolutionary theory. For example, that is the reason all life consists of the same 20 amino acids. Is there such a structural contribution and what is it?

If my examples are flawed in some way, or you don't understand the question, I would like to do our best to come to a mutual understanding.

Lastly, people always ask what motivates my questions. In this case, the question was sparked by a review of Monad to Man by Peter Bowler (American Scientist, vol.85, 1997). In that review he states, "The biomedical sciences have flourished because they are experimental and have direct practical applications. But their success is based on a profound lack of interest in the question of how organisms we study were formed. As long as we can fix the machines, we do not care how they were designed--and many rest content with the idea of a supernatural Designer. Evolution requires an interest in origins, and an acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them, which is simply not shared by many biologists."

Question #1 stems from the statement that "Evolution requires an interest in origins", and question #2 from the required "... acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them ..."

The LUCA is a conclusion from evidence not an element of that evidence.

We cannot know the details of the LUCA's genome or nature. Given the diversity of life even in the Precambrian I think the LUCA would have barely even qualified as life at all.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Can you point out a single specific difference in either the evidence or research into evolution on any scale if the LUCA turned out to be a miraculous creation?

I'm personally not aware of any, and if the nature of the origin of life doesn't change evolution then it can't be a necessary component.

Your question is meaningless. Evolution has not happened because it cannot happen. No one has demonstrated evolution in the lab. Evolutionists were so devoid of evidence that they began to conflate adaptation with evolution. That it is not possible to extrapolate adaptation to evolution does not bother evolutionists. It not science in the true meaning of the word.

 

[Shemjaza]

Your question is meaningless. Evolution has not happened because it cannot happen. No one has demonstrated evolution in the lab. Evolutionists were so devoid of evidence that they began to conflate adaptation with evolution. That it is not possible to extrapolate adaptation to evolution does not bother evolutionists. It not science in the true meaning of the word.

Firstly you did not answer my question.

Secondly, the absolute facts of "adaptation" that many Creationists accept can be demonstrated to have cumulative changes leading to speciation/macroevolution. These changes leave evidence and this evidence can be discovered.

We have discovered that evidence in genetic remnants, the patterns of relatedness of modern life and fossil remains.

So, there is clearly opportunities for scientific research that are going ahead.

Can you explain your personal definition of "science"? Does it allow for the conclusion that Pluto will completely orbit the Sun, despite it never having been witnessed to have done so?

 

[Bradskii]

Question #1 stems from the statement that "Evolution requires an interest in origins"...

I don't think it does. If you are studying the evolution of Homo sapien, then there's no need to go back a few billion years to the first life forms to do so. LUCA is borderline life. So an investigation into it would be more concerned with abiogenisis I would have thought

 

[Shemjaza]

Question #1 stems from the statement that "Evolution requires an interest in origins", and question #2 from the required "... acceptance of the different techniques needed to study them ..."

To add to Bradskii's comment, if it were demonstrated that modern life was in fact descended from a number of completely separate special creations then the study and evidence for evolution could still be evaluated independently for the family groups.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

If you actually looked at the published papers you'd see there has been a great deal of progress in abiogenesis research, and it is ongoing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your question is meaningless. Evolution has not happened because it cannot happen. No one has demonstrated evolution in the lab. Evolutionists were so devoid of evidence that they began to conflate adaptation with evolution. That it is not possible to extrapolate adaptation to evolution does not bother evolutionists. It not science in the true meaning of the word.

Evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild. So, no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

What!? Why do you think that there is a lack of origin of life progress in research done on it? Odds are that you are willfully ignorant of that progress.

 

[Frank Robert]

2) As stated here, "LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth, but rather the latest that is ancestral to all current existing life". Therefore, I would expect commonalities in life prior to LUCA to be closer to an assumption than a theorem. As such, I wouldn't expect functional applications of this prior life, but rather structural contributions to evolutionary theory. For example, that is the reason all life consists of the same 20 amino acids. Is there such a structural contribution and what is it?

What do you think would be different in evolution if the LUCA did not evolve naturally and was actually designed by an intelligent agent?

 

[J_B_]

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.

OK, but let me provide some context for this thread. I didn't mention the origin of life. In the context of Bowler's quote (who did mention origins), I took his meaning as a reference to Darwin's title "On the Origin of Species". I think a more appropriate title with respect to current biology would be, "On the Cause of Life's Diversity". I think that fits the meaning better, but I have no idea if biologists would agree.

In that spirit, if possible, I'd like to restrict the discussion to the OP.

 

[J_B_]

I don't think it does. If you are studying the evolution of Homo sapien, then there's no need to go back a few billion years to the first life forms to do so. LUCA is borderline life. So an investigation into it would be more concerned with abiogenisis I would have thought

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?

What do you think would be different in evolution if the LUCA did not evolve naturally and was actually designed by an intelligent agent?

I'd rather not get into intelligent design. To answer your question, basically nothing would be different. Organisms are what they are. Hopefully that is answer enough for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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'd rather not get into intelligent design. To answer your question, basically nothing would be different. Organisms are what they are. Hopefully that is answer enough for you.

LUCA is a conclusion. It is not a speculation, it is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Since it is a conclusion and not a direct observation there does not appear to be much that it can do to add to the theory of evolution.

So why ask? Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity is a fact. Even more so since there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.

 

[J_B_]

LUCA is a conclusion. It is not a speculation, it is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Since it is a conclusion and not a direct observation there does not appear to be much that it can do to add to the theory of evolution.

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?

So why ask?

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Why do you think that only a biologist would know this? There are some here, but they are apt to say the exact same thing. Anyone that has studied evolution at all should be able to understand this. There is no way that we can have an accurate genome of LUCA, at best we could find some likely genes that it had, but after close to 4 billion years of evolution even that is a bit dubious.

Why did you even ask the question in the first place?

 

[Frank Robert]

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

No formal background in biology.

If you would like to interact with biologists and other scientists, I highly recommend Peaceful Science where you will find scientists (active and retired) from many fields along with other interesting people like William Lang Craig.

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?

A starting point for evolution.

To answer your question, basically nothing would be different. Organisms are what they are. Hopefully that is answer enough for you.
I'd rather not get into intelligent design.

No problem, My question was meant to demonstrate that it wouldn't make a difference which you agree with.

 

[J_B_]

If you would like to interact with biologists and other scientists, I highly recommend Peaceful Science where you will find scientists (active and retired) from many fields along with other interesting people like William Lane Craig.

Oh wow! I didn’t know about this. I’ll check it out. Thanks!

 

[J_B_]

Why do you think that only a biologist would know this?

I don't think that. I'd just prefer to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

There are some here, but they are apt to say the exact same thing.

I hope so. If none respond, I'll proceed with what I have. It's not the answer I expected, so a few more questions popped into my head.