• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Common Descent

I can’t disagree with that and I don’t think that is what the evolutionists are saying, but rather than using the plural every single time, they use the term LUCA to indicate the life form that is the foundation of all the rest without claiming how many individuals there were, since obviously they can’t know at this point. I pretty sure they’re not saying that there was just one.

What your article says is not conclusive, Watsup.



“This is the only organelle to our knowledge now that is common to eukaryotes, that is common to bacteria and that is most likely common to archaea,” Seufferheld said. “It is the only one that is universal.”

The study lends support to a hypothesis that LUCA may have been more complex even than the simplest organisms alive today, said James Whitfield, a professor of entomology at Illinois and a co-author on the study.
Last Universal Common Ancestor had a complex cellular structure | News Bureau | University of Illinois





you will find that he does in fact show that the accusations of James Tour made against macroevolution are false in that he claimed that polyphosphate storage organelle is NOT present in all three domains of life — bacteria, archaea and the eukaryotes, which include animals, plants and fungi.
This is from an evolutionary scientist that actually does research, not someone who does critiques as a hobby like the dilettante Tour as regards evolution.

And, you're wrong again about James Tour. BECAUSE..........you don't read.


Cellular and organelle bilayers, which were once thought of as simple vesicles, are anything but.

They are highly functional gatekeepers. By virtue of their glycans, lipid bilayers become enormous banks of stored, readable, and re-writable information. The sonication of a few random lipids, polysaccharides, and proteins in a lab will not yield cellular lipid bilayer membranes.

Mes frères, mes semblables, with these complexities in mind, how can we build the microsystem of a simple cell? Would we be able to build even the lipid bilayers? These diminutive cellular microsystems—which are, in turn, composed of thousands of nanosystems—are beyond our comprehension.
An Open Letter to My Colleagues | Articles | Inference: International Review of Science
 
Last edited:
There's simply no other theory that is supported by the evidence. Common Descent is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from what we know. The creation myth in Genesis certainly doesn't match the evidence, what with flowering plants existing before both the sun and insects, and birds existing before other terrestrial vertebrates.
 
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.


That was in 2011, if I'm not mistaken.


In 2018 - they're still looking for the LUCA!



December 18, 2018
Looking for LUCA, the last universal common ancestor
It must be noted that LUCA is not the origin of life. The earliest evidence of life dates to 3.7 billion years ago in the form of stromatolites, which are layers of sediment laid down by microbes. Presumably, life may have existed even before that. Yet, LUCA's arrival and its evolution into archaea and bacteria could have occurred at any point between 2 to 4 billion years ago.


Looking for LUCA, the last universal common ancestor
 

Still Clueless about the Origin of Life

James M. Tour

March 26, 2020


Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter in the book by distinguished Rice University synthetic organic chemist James Tour.




Organisms have well-defined molecular assemblies, redox potentials across membranes, and metabolic pathways — all operating in exquisite states that we call “life.”

Chemistry, by contrast, is utterly indifferent to whether anything is alive or not. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to “evolve” toward life. Never.

Contrary to the hyperbole of press reports, any synthetic molecularly derived structures that have been touted as being cell-like are in reality far from it. This situation might change in the future, but it is unlikely to change under the current course of research. Scientists have no data to support molecular “evolution” leading to life. The research community remains clueless.




Consider the Progress in Other Fields

Consider what has occurred in other fields in the past sixty-seven years since Miller-Urey performed their experiments: human space travel, satellite interconnectivity, unlocking DNA’s code and its precise genetic manipulation, biomedical imaging, automated peptide and nucleotide synthesis, molecular structure determination, silicon device fabrication, integrated circuits, and the Internet, to name just a few.

By comparison, origin-of-life research has not made any progress whatsoever in addressing the fundamental questions of life’s origin. Two-thirds of a century and all that has been generated are more suggestions on how life might have formed — suggestions that really show how life probably did not form. Nothing even resembling a synthetic cellular structure has arisen from its independent components, let alone a living cell. Not even close.

Still Clueless about the Origin of Life | Evolution News
 
There's simply no other theory that is supported by the evidence. Common Descent is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from what we know. The creation myth in Genesis certainly doesn't match the evidence, what with flowering plants existing before both the sun and insects, and birds existing before other terrestrial vertebrates.

I think you are misunderstanding the creation account...Genesis 1:1 states...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Leaving matters indefinite as to time but they were created 1st...the sun was a a part of the heavens, along with the planets and stars...then Genesis 1 goes on to tell how the earth was prepared for habitation of vegetation, animals, and man...chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1...
 
You've just shown you're a dilettante when it comes to making claims in a serious discussion. Heck, you don't read at all!
You just look for titles of articles that to you, seems to support your claim! You copy/paste without reading!

Sorry, Watsup - but you've just lost your credibility. :shrug:


Psychological projection.
 


I have shown how Tour has no credibility in regard to intimate knowledge of evolution. He is a dilettante, like Trump in the presidency. I have also included an article from a BIOCHEMIST who refutes Tour on a point-by-point basis, but instead of acknowledging and responding to my inputs as written, you cherry pick individual statements and respond with rants. That is not moving the thread forward in a reasoned manner.
 
I think you are misunderstanding the creation account...Genesis 1:1 states...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Leaving matters indefinite as to time but they were created 1st...the sun was a a part of the heavens, along with the planets and stars...then Genesis 1 goes on to tell how the earth was prepared for habitation of vegetation, animals, and man...chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1...


So interesting as to how much credibility you put into obvious myths.
 
So interesting as to how much credibility you put into obvious myths.

The quote marks around the word day are very funny. Apparently, in the bible a day can mean anything from 24 hours to millions and millions of years.
 
The quote marks around the word day are very funny. Apparently, in the bible a day can mean anything from 24 hours to millions and millions of years.

Apparently, IRL a day can mean anything from 24 hours to millions and millions of years..."today the sun is shining"...""back in the prehistoric day"...see how that works?
 
The quote marks around the word day are very funny. Apparently, in the bible a day can mean anything from 24 hours to millions and millions of years.

Yes, that is a common Bible apologist talking point these days. I have heard it many times from many different “believers”. But it does not solve the problem of the order in which “God created” which is quite strange as someone else pointed out, and is certainly not in agreement with the manner in which science has resolved the order in which the universe came to be.
 
:roll:

You're barking at the wrong tree, Watsup. You better read your own article!



How many times do I have to say this:




I'm not the one who used "DOGMA!"

It's your source!




I simply quoted the article you gave!







You quoted it too!








Now you know why I have to use large, colorful font! :mrgreen:

You did not reply to my input as to the different definition of the world "dogma". You merely reposted your previous talking point.
I am not the least bit impressed by that.
 
you've just shown you're a dilettante when it comes to making claims in a serious discussion. Heck, you don't read at all!
You just look for titles of articles that to you, seems to support your claim! You copy/paste without reading!

Sorry, watsup - but you've just lost your credibility. :shrug:


psychological projection bigtime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You did not reply to my input as to the different definition of the world "dogma". You merely reposted your previous talking point.
I am not the least bit impressed by that.

Perhaps a larger red font would do the trick?
 
You've just shown you're a dilettante when it comes to making claims in a serious discussion. Heck, you don't read at all!
You just look for titles of articles that to you, seems to support your claim! You copy/paste without reading!

Sorry, Watsup - but you've just lost your credibility. :shrug:

Did you even read the article that I posted? I doubt it, because if you had done so, you would have seen that it is TOUR who defines HIMSELF as a dilettante! Consider the following quote which can be found in that article:

"Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context."

Let's review what he has said:
I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE TO SAY ABOUT IT!
I AM A LAYMAN OF THE SUBJECT!
I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM!


So what do you not understand about the term "dilettante"??????????
 


Here is a quote as listed above from the "open letter":

"Mes frères, mes semblables, with these complexities in mind, how can we build the microsystem of a simple cell? Would we be able to build even the lipid bilayers? These diminutive cellular microsystems—which are, in turn, composed of thousands of nanosystems—are beyond our comprehension."

"Beyond our comprehension". This is the same argument that has been used since the dawn of mankind to make a claim for a god. Primitives were certain that a god must have caused eclipses because it was "beyond their comprehension" to explain it.. There's really nothing new here, just replace "eclipse" with "thousands of nanosystems" and the argument is the same. I am not impressed at all.

And again he writes a "letter to my colleagues". How many times do I have to explain this: if he truly has something of merit to say as regards the SCIENCE of evolution, then he needs to write a paper and submit it to a scientific journal so that peers can carefully review it. Writing letters is GRANDSTANDING. It does NOTHING to forward the cause of scientific research. No solid scientist is impressed by such tactics.
 
There's simply no other theory that is supported by the evidence. Common Descent is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from what we know. The creation myth in Genesis certainly doesn't match the evidence, what with flowering plants existing before both the sun and insects, and birds existing before other terrestrial vertebrates.


Exactly. Genesis is clearly myth.
 
That was in 2011, if I'm not mistaken.


In 2018 - they're still looking for the LUCA!







Looking for LUCA, the last universal common ancestor


Yes, that is what science is all about: "still looking". Doing research into the nature of the planet and the universe. So different from the CERTAINTY of believers such as yourself who simply PROCLAIM "truth" and stop looking elsewhere for answers.
 
The common denominator is we were all created by Jehovah God from the earth itself...

did he hand craft us or did he merely plant the garden and watched it grow/
 
Yes, that is a common Bible apologist talking point these days. I have heard it many times from many different “believers”. But it does not solve the problem of the order in which “God created” which is quite strange as someone else pointed out, and is certainly not in agreement with the manner in which science has resolved the order in which the universe came to be.

Which is nothing more than an assumption, for the texts clearly state that it is a 'day' ~ not an indeterminate period of time. Jerome's Vulgate employs the word dies [nom.] diei [gen.] in Genesis, and I have translated this text myself.
 
I think you are misunderstanding the creation account...Genesis 1:1 states...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Leaving matters indefinite as to time but they were created 1st...the sun was a a part of the heavens, along with the planets and stars...

The sun, moon and stars weren't created until Genesis 1:14, after the creation of flowering plants in Genesis 1:11. All our current evidence points to the sun being somewhat older than life on Earth.


then Genesis 1 goes on to tell how the earth was prepared for habitation of vegetation, animals, and man...chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1...

Genesis 2:5-7 states that the presence of man occurred prior to the phenomenon of rain, that is also contradictory to all current evidence.
 
The sun, moon and stars weren't created until Genesis 1:14, after the creation of flowering plants in Genesis 1:11. All our current evidence points to the sun being somewhat older than life on Earth.




Genesis 2:5-7 states that the presence of man occurred prior to the phenomenon of rain, that is also contradictory to all current evidence.

That is not true...the Bible record indicates that the universe, the starry heavens including the sun, as well as this planet earth, were created before the 1st of earth’s creative days began...the earth itself was not created during the 6 “days” of creation but was already created...then in preparing the earth itself for life...

Day 1...light appeared on the “watery deep” that enveloped the earth...

Day 2...the atmosphere was formed between two layers of water...

Day 3...the dry land gradually appeared, where Jehovah God created all types of vegetation, grasses, shrubs and trees....

Day 4...the luminaries, the sun and moon and stars, became visible from the earth’s surface for the 1st time...

Day 5...God created marine life and flying creatures...

Day 6...God created land animals and man...
 
That is not true...the Bible record indicates that the universe, the starry heavens including the sun, as well as this planet earth, were created before the 1st of earth’s creative days began...the earth itself was not created during the 6 “days” of creation but was already created...then in preparing the earth itself for life...

Day 1...light appeared on the “watery deep” that enveloped the earth...

Day 2...the atmosphere was formed between two layers of water...

Day 3...the dry land gradually appeared, where Jehovah God created all types of vegetation, grasses, shrubs and trees....

Day 4...the luminaries, the sun and moon and stars, became visible from the earth’s surface for the 1st time...

Day 5...God created marine life and flying creatures...

Day 6...God created land animals and man...


You are misrepresenting day 4. Genesis clearly states that "GOD MADE" the sun and moon and stars on that day, not that "they became visible for the first time".
It is that sort of misrepresenting (which you Bibliophiles call "interpreting") that shows how the "truth" must constantly be stretched in order to fit the Bible into any sort of logic.

14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


To repeat: 16] And God MADE two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Plus it simply does not make sense that the sun was only created AFTER the earth. It is clearly the other way around according to science.
 
You are misrepresenting day 4. Genesis clearly states that "GOD MADE" the sun and moon and stars on that day, not that "they became visible for the first time".
It is that sort of misrepresenting (which you Bibliophiles call "interpreting") that shows how the "truth" must constantly be stretched in order to fit the Bible into any sort of logic.

14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


To repeat: 16] And God MADE two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Plus it simply does not make sense that the sun was only created AFTER the earth. It is clearly the other way around according to science.

That is not true, either...on the 1st “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used, where the Hebrew word used for “light” is ʼohr, meaning light in a general sense but on the 4th “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·ʼohrʹ, which refers to a luminary or source of light...Genesis 1:14...so, on the 1st “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer...now, on the 4th “day,” things evidently changed, to where the sun, the moon, and the stars could be seen from the earth's surface...also at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·raʼʹ...meaning “create,” is not used...the Hebrew verb ʽa·sahʹ, meaning “make,” is used...since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day 4...
 
Back
Top Bottom