Common Descent

watsup said:

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.

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

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

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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.

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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.”

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.”

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?”

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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

Click to expand...

zyzygy said:

I fear that you are wasting your time.

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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

Click to expand...

watsup said:

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

Click to expand...

zyzygy said:

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

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

tosca1 said:

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

Click to expand...