Common Descent

[watsup]

In another thread, Tosca was expressing skepticism that all living organism on this particular planet share a common ancestor, so I told him to do some research in that regard. He wanted a new thread instead, somhere it is. Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”



In addition, It has been estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

There ya go, Tosca. Have at it.

 

[zyzygy]

In another thread, Tosca was expressing skepticism that all living organism on this particular planet share a common ancestor, so I told him to do some research in that regard. He wanted a new thread instead, somhere it is. Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”



In addition, It has been estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

There ya go, Tosca. Have at it.

I fear that you are wasting your time.

 

[danielpalos]

In another thread, Tosca was expressing skepticism that all living organism on this particular planet share a common ancestor, so I told him to do some research in that regard. He wanted a new thread instead, somhere it is. Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”



In addition, It has been estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

There ya go, Tosca. Have at it.

The Miller-Urey experiment could provide that clue.

 

[Daisy]

The common denominator is we were all created by Jehovah God from the earth itself...

 

[OrphanSlug]

The odds of this conversation going the direction the OP is suggesting, here with the call out too, is about as likely as being struck by lightning 15 times in a row while standing in one spot all on a clear day.

 

[blarg]

The common denominator is we were all created by Jehovah God from the earth itself...

or your god is made up not like an all powerful being need to bother with killing and hurting its creations randomly to get the kinds of life it wants

a strictly benevolent god could not

 

[TypicalRussian]

ARE there creatosints on this site?

 

[tosca1]

In another thread, Tosca was expressing skepticism that all living organism on this particular planet share a common ancestor, so I told him to do some research in that regard. He wanted a new thread instead, somhere it is. Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”



In addition, It has been estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

There ya go, Tosca. Have at it.

Thanks for the thread. Quite busy these couple of days.....let me read your article first.

 

[tosca1]

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”

Lol. Your introductory quote confirmed what I'd said before! It's speculation!


So, NOW that's what they suggest! :lol:

What did the suggest before?

Scientists had thought organelles were absent from bacteria and their distantly related microbial cousins, the archaea.

Now these findings suggest this polyphosphate storage organelle is present in all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea and the eukaryotes, which include animals, plants and fungi.

"It was a dogma of microbiology that organelles weren't present in bacteria," said researcher Manfredo Seufferheld, a stress physiologist and cell biologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science


Lol. If they got their dogma wrong - what won't we assume they can get this one wrong too!






S P E C U L A T I O N S!


That's what it is.

 

[tosca1]

In another thread, Tosca was expressing skepticism that all living organism on this particular planet share a common ancestor, so I told him to do some research in that regard. He wanted a new thread instead, somhere it is. Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”



In addition, It has been estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

There ya go, Tosca. Have at it.

One potential criticism is that archaea and bacteria might not have inherited this organelle from the last universal common ancestor.


One possibility regarding the last universal common ancestor that remains was that it was not a single-celled organism, Whitfield added. Rather, it might have been more of a colony of tiny subcellular entities. "We have no way of telling," he said.

The researchers now plan to investigate the evolutionary history of other proteins linked with this organelle to get a picture of what the last universal common ancestor might have been like.

Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science


:roll:


See? What did I tell ya? :mrgreen:


S P E C U L A T I O N S!

 

[tosca1]

The article you gave, Wassup, is an example of......... EXTRAPOLATION.


It means

to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area




That's the main problem with evolution. It's all just extrapolation.

From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution.

The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.

And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology” lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.” It is not a matter of politics. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me?

Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?

If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered.

James M Tour Group >> Evolution/Creation



James Tour is a chemist.

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction.

He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents.

Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution – Uncommon Descent

 

[tosca1]

In another thread, Tosca was expressing skepticism that all living organism on this particular planet share a common ancestor, so I told him to do some research in that regard. He wanted a new thread instead, somhere it is. Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”



In addition, It has been estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

There ya go, Tosca. Have at it.

In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here’s what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution – Uncommon Descent




I believe the claim of James Tour. You know why?


Because........James Tour has been very publicly vocal about this claim!
He's been throwing challenges all around- challenging the science community to prove him wrong!
oh yeah, he's still at it.


If his claim isn't true - why can't anyone shut him up? :lol:

 

[tosca1]

 

[tosca1]

Man, these are fighting words! He's repeatedly thrown a challenge on scientists!

 

[tosca1]

Lol. He wasn't content to challenge them in his workshops or videos! He penned an open letter!



An Open Letter to My Colleagues

James Tour


An Open Letter to My Colleagues | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science

 

[tosca1]

Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

We're done with the overview. What's good about it is that right away, it showed the problem of extrapolation!


What's next? :lol:

Let's get in "deeper?"

 

[tosca1]

I fear that you are wasting your time.

What's all this about your.................... "fear?" Hahahaha



Already? You're throwing in the towel! hahahahaha :lamo



Lol, right at the heels of his OP.....you go.......


............you're quite the morale booster for Watsup, huh?

 

[watsup]

Who to believe, Tosca or evolutionary biologists on a worldwide basis?
That one is easy.

 

[zyzygy]

Who to believe, Tosca or evolutionary biologists on a worldwide basis?
That one is easy.

Mmmmm..... Tosca's info comes from a book of fiction written by goat herders. Choices, choices!

 

[Daisy]

Who to believe, Tosca or evolutionary biologists on a worldwide basis?
That one is easy.

You read that?:shock:

 

[tosca1]

Who to believe, Tosca or evolutionary biologists on a worldwide basis?
That one is easy.

Is that all you can say? :lol:

Have you actually read my source?


CITE the evolutionary biologists that we're supposed to believe!

Lets read what they have to say!



FYI, none of them actually understand what they're talking about :mrgreen:

 

[tosca1]

Mmmmm..... Tosca's info comes from a book of fiction written by goat herders. Choices, choices!

Where did I cite the Bible in this thread?

Oh Zyg.......admit it. You're just spouting off nonsense!

 

[tosca1]

Here's the video of the Dallas Conference in 2019 where-in Tour was described as "on fire!"


"Dr. Tour is one of the world’s top synthetic organic chemists. He has authored 680 scientific publications and holds more than 120 patents (here is a partial list).
In 2014, Thomson Reuters named him one of “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds,” and in 2018 Clarivate Analytics recognized him as one of the world’s most highly cited researchers.

Tour is also fearless. He joined more than a thousand other scientists in signing the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” More recently, he has become a thorn in the side of the origin of life research community, offering blunt assessments of the current state of origin of life research."

Read more on this controversy here: Professor James Tour: A “Liar for Jesus”? | Evolution News...




"SCIENCE TO CRITIQUE THE SCIENCE."

 

[watsup]

Lol. Your introductory quote confirmed what I'd said before! It's speculation!

So, NOW that's what they suggest! :lol:

What did the suggest before?

Lol. If they got their dogma wrong - what won't we assume they can get this one wrong too!

SPECULATION

That's what it is.

First of all, it’s not dogma. Dogma means “settled”, as in the God dogma to which you subscribe. Scientists are always open to new information that allows them to update their present understanding of the natural world.

And their study of LUCA as outlined on the article is not “wrong”, and even if it was, your “assumption” simply does.not follow.

 

[watsup]

The article you gave, Wassup, is an example of......... EXTRAPOLATION.


It means

to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area


That's the main problem with evolution. It's all just extrapolation.


James Tour is a chemist.




A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution – Uncommon Descent

No, it’s not all just “extrapolations. The fossil record shows a clear road of life from the very simplest all the way to the most complex over billions of years. Evolution is a scientific FACT because it was and is the manner that life has come to its present from on this planet.

And perhaps he is correct in stating that no scientist truly understands macroevolution, it that doesn’t mean that they run around the world grandstanding, but rather that they continue their research into the matter.