CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:33
Arguments:40
Total Votes:33
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (32)

Debate Creator

SlapShot(2608) pic



Science finds Key to the Origin of Life!

A surprisingly specific genetic portrait of the ancestor of all living things has been generated by scientists who say that the likeness sheds considerable light on the mystery of how life first emerged on Earth.

This venerable ancestor was a single-cell, bacterium-like organism. But it has a grand name, or at least an acronym. It is known as Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, and is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/sci

Add New Argument
1 point

Questions:

If Earth was 560 billion years old, where did this bacterial supposedly life for the previous 3.5 billions years, since it is 4 billion years old?

Where did it come from? How did it survive?

1 point

Hey Saint...........

Sorry about the bum link...I'll try to get a better one.

Meanwhile.........here's an excerpt that might answer a couple questions for you..........

The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously.

Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them.

SlapShot(2608) Clarified
1 point

You must have mis-read, Saint.

The Earth is NOT 560 MYO, but rather, 4.560 Billion years old.

The 560 Million is after the Four Billion, so as to combine for our total age.

SS

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Just poking a little fun at ya there...the OP is misworded:

Universal Common Ancestor, and is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

See? It say LUCA lived some four bya, when Earth was only 560 million old. Where did the thing live for 3.5 billion years? I'm sure somebody wants to correct that wording, I hope it wasn't copied from a site which is supposed to be authoritative.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

Oh, I see....my mistake. But you got it backwards a bit yourself. The 560 million years would be before the 4 billion, not after......so LUCA in evolutionary belief lived 4 billion years ago when the earth was only 560.274 million years old (I put exact numbers in there because science should be accurate and not rounded down to the lowest ten million.)

1 point

the link's not working....................................................................

SlapShot(2608) Clarified
1 point

Hey Saint.............

Try this link, it should work.

Meet LUCA! The Key to Life's Beginning!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
2 points

LUCA and the evolutionary Tree of Life

As stated above, evolutionists believe in “common descent” – that all creatures – from the slug in the ground to the massive sperm whale in the ocean – are related and all have a place in the evolutionary “tree of life.” Given such a belief, logically there must be a first creature from which all other creatures evolved, or “descended” to use Darwin’s language. And so now there are attempts to identify this first creature – called LUCA – the “last universal common ancestor” or LUA – last universal ancestor:

“In trying to create what is basically a family tree of all life (at which LUCA is at the center), scientists are trying to reconstruct LUCA.” [10] Discovery.com

While they have no idea what LUCA is or looks like, scientists believe they have identified some of its characteristics. [11] Without going into further detail, here’s why we can dismiss this argument now without further consideration. Consider Charlie Brown out in the pumpkin patch, waiting for the great pumpkin. What evidence does he have of the great pumpkin? Only his belief that it exists and will appear. There is no other evidence of the Great Pumpkin.

Likewise, what evidence do evolutionists have that LUCA exists? The only “evidence” they have of LUCA is their belief that evolution and common descent is true. Thus the reasoning goes something like this:

Major Premise: Evolution requires there to be an initial, unique ancestor

Minor Premise: No such unique ancestor has been found

Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a unique ancestor waiting to be found

When formatted as a syllogism, you can easily see that the premise and conclusion are essentially the same: that there must be a unique ancestor – which they call LUCA. When your premise is also your conclusion, that is called Begging the question – a type of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is evident when “the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.”[12] Evolutionists who ask questions like, “how do you explain LUCA?” are apparently unaware of the circular nature of either their argument, and thus the futility of the search for LUCA. For such researchers, they apparently believe that finding what they claim is LUCA will prove Evolution. But LUCA cannot be proven – no one has observed the chain of events from the beginning until now. (Except for God, and God’s testimony is he created by “kinds”, he did not start with a single ancestor.) Further, LUCA is not even a consideration unless you first believe in evolution. Thus whatever they find, how will they know it wasn’t created? They won’t. Since they only accept evidence that fits within the evolutionary framework they are blind to the evidences of design – which is another problem with their entire approach.

The Bible doesn’t teach LUCA or the evolutionary tree. As noted above the Bible teaches God created all creatures “according to their kinds.” (Gen 1.21, 24) There are many kinds (note: kinds are not synonymous with species – they are more general) and the many kinds are often illustrated with an orchard – full of trees – not a single tree. Charlie Brown may find what he thinks is “the great pumpkin” but it will be just another pumpkin that he believes is something special. Likewise evolutionists may find what they believe to be LUCA, but it will just be some creature created by God they believe to be LUCA. They believe because they are blind to evidences of design, and their faith in evolution says LUCA must exist.

http://thecreationclub.com/fallacious-evolutionary-arguments-part-i-gulo-and-luca/

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Argument 1: “GULO proves Evolution”

The first question that needs to be addressed is, what is GULO and how does it supposedly prove evolution?

GULO and the implications for evolution

L-gulonolactone oxidase – commonly known as GULO – is a gene designed to synthesize vitamin C from glucose or galactose, but in some groups of animals, the GULO gene does not function in that manner, and so it is given the label of “pseudogene.” [2]

Additionally, the gene is “broken” reportedly in the same place in multiple species resulting in a loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C. Humans are not able to synthesize vitamin C. Neither are guinea pigs, chimpanzees and several species of monkeys along with some species of birds, bats and fish. Evolutionists look at these facts and conclude that the only way the gene could have broken in the sample place is if the gene of a common ancestor became broken, and that same broken gene was then inherited by subsequent descendants. Thus to their way of thinking the only way this broken gene would show up in multiple species is if it started in a common ancestor.

Recent evidence refutes this conclusion, and the attempts by evolutionists to salvage their conclusion makes matters worse – refuting evolution itself. But let me start with the evidence from DNA which the evolutionists like to conveniently ignore (a fallacy known as suppressed evidence). In the appendix to his book The Myth of Junk DNA, Icons of Evolution author Jonathan Wells gives 3 powerful arguments against this latest evolutionary mistake. Let me mention just one:

If humans and chimps were recently descended from a common ancestor, one would expect their Y chromosomes to be very similar. Genome researchers recently reported, however, that the male-specific portions of the human and chimp Y chromosomes ‘differ radically in sequence structure and gene content.’ ”

Thus he concludes:

If similarities in the vitamin C pseudogene are evidence for common ancestry, then differences in the Y chromosome are presumably evidence against it.” [3]

Once again we see how evolutionists love science when it appears to support evolution, but ignore science when it refutes evolution. Wells’ argument is simple: If common descent is really true, then a common gene should be very similar [4] across species. The fact that a very common gene – the Y Chromosome – is not refutes the “common descent” theory. This of course, is not enough to make evolutionists disbelieve the common descent theory, because for many evolutionists, they’re not really interested in the science; they’re in it for the philosophy – a philosophy that says there is no God.

But they would do well to consider the logical conclusion to their argument, because as we’ll see, continuing to support GULO as evidence of common descent refutes evolution in another way.

Defending GULO refutes Evolution

Wells’ observation is just for starters. As mentioned above research has shown that the break occurs in what is considered a “hot spot” – a location that has a propensity to break, or as one abstract put it:

GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. [5]

In other words, the breaks occur where changes are frequent and thus more likely. Thus it’s sheer wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists that “the break” occurred in a distant ancestor, and not simply broken multiple times in a location that has a propensity to break causing a mutation, resulting in – in this case – a broken GULO gene.

In an effort to save the theory, evolutionists will counter that is simply statistically impossible. If they do so they will be guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading – because they use the very same argument – multiple separate changes – themselves. This is particularly evident in defense of “convergent evolution”, where theoretically different species converge on the same trait or ability via different evolutionary paths. For example evolutionists believe that the eye has evolved separately and independently many, many times:

“Animal eyes are an excellent example of convergent evolution. All the eyes from different animals across the planet today did not evolve from the same conceptual eye. In fact, eyes have evolved numerous times in different lineages.” Scott Edwards, Harvard University [6]

You may have seen how the eyes of cats and other animals glow in the dark. That effect is caused by a reflective surface at the back of the eyes called the Tapetum Lucidum. Evolutionists say the same thing about this phenomenon – that it also evolved independently many times:

“But I think really the most interesting thing about the evolution of the tapetum is that it’s such a good solution to enhancing sensitivity, that many many different groups of mammals have arrived at this same solution independently.” Chris Kirk, University of Texas [7]

So if evolutionists insist that both the eyes themselves, and the enhancement to the eyes made by the Tapetum which improves night vision and causes glowing eyes – can evolve multiple time independently; how can they then turn around and state that the mutations that broke the GULO pseudogene did not do so multiple times independently showing up in different species? Just as eyes, and glowing night eyes show up in different species according to the theory by multiple independent evolutionary paths, how can they maintain GULU didn’t break in multiple independent species? To maintain GULO could not have thus broken independently shows them to be using the logical fallacy of special pleading to try to hang on to a failed argument. Put another way, evolutionists cannot claim GULO could not have broken multiple times independently without also having to admit that things like eyes and the tapetum could not have evolved multiple times independently. And if that is their position – that eyes could not have evolved that way – they leave themselves without an explanation of why eyes and the tapedum exist in multiple species.

No Support for the Evolution of Eyes

If you’re worried that by affirming the independent breaking of the GULO gene, we’re also indirectly affirming the independent evolution of eyes – don’t worry, that is an unwarranted conclusion. The eye is a common feature not because of common descent, but because of a common designer – God. More over the eye is much too complex to have evolved. Step by step explanations about how an eye might have evolved, such as what Neil deGrasse Tyson tried to float on episode 2 of the reboot of Cosmos[8] won’t work because though they don’t show it – there is an intelligence directing the process they propose. How can you be sure?

Take the raw components of an eye -Light sensitive cells, nerves, lenses, fluid, etc. – and put them on the floor in front of your cat or dog – or if you’re concerned about them eating the components – use a 2 year old child. See how long it takes them come up with a functional eye. Don’t think they will – ever? [9]Neither do I – because it’s obvious that more than a little intelligence is needed to assemble the parts – not to mention the intelligence and information needed to create the components in the first place. And even if your pets could assemble them (which they can’t) – another thing evolutionists don’t discuss is how to create a brain with the intelligence to interpret the signals that are being sent.

Consider: the eye does not project a picture of what it sees to the brain like a movie projecting a picure on a big screen. It sends coded signals. Who created that code? How does the brain know how to decipher the code? To assemble the picture? That is a great wonder of complexity. (For more on the intelligent design of codes, see my article DNA and Windtalkers).

Another part of the aforementioned complexity is the detection of color. The eye has cells that respond to red, green and blue – in proportion to the color you’re seeing. Like a computer monitor it mixes the colors together to create the color observed, then sends the coded signal to the brain and the brain interprets it. Computers and monitors are obviously designed. How then, does the brain know how to do that same task? There’s intelligence built it in, that’s how. Does that not clearly indicate both the brain and the eyes that send signals to it have been designed by an intelligent designer just as a computer and monitor have been? So the affirming of independent breaking of GULO does not impact or weaken our ability to demonstrate that the eye is designed. The complexity and design evident in the eye provides overwhelming evidence of that fact.

http://thecreationclub.com/fallacious-evolutionary-arguments-part-i-gulo-and-luca/

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

I checked out another site on LUCA, obviously supporting evolution by the way they word things drawing conclusions without evidence and then implying things they observe support their beliefs. I get the drift of the science they speak of and I smell how they insert beliefs as facts when they are not facts, them imply facts of things they see prove things they cannot prove but they believe.......I'll check out your site.

The key to life's beginning would be the moment when the first thing or group of things became alive. In evolutionary belief, that would be abiogenesis, life emerging out of non-living matter. The real key to life's beginning is when God spoke living things into existence, so life came from the living God which is logical as life does not come from non-living matter, it is always descended from life. They're lying to you, my friend...maybe they really believe it, but there is an agenda behind the lies. It's about world domination, does God rule the world or do sinners rule the world? The sinners are trying to own it as the playground for their lusts. God won't allow it to go the way it's going much longer, He's going to put a stop to the ungodly, Jesus will rule the world, evolution and Islam will be forgotten on Earth one day.

1 point

another question...so the single celled critter was emerged life? What did it emerge from, how did it emerge, why did it emerge? Who says it emerged? Are they the ones who made it emerge?

SlapShot(2608) Clarified
1 point

Read the article and it will explain our current Theory on Abiogenesis.

I provided a better link that should work for you.

Article is entitled "Meet LUCA! (Last Universal Common Ancestor)."

Deep Sea Thermal vents are thought to have been a key factor in providing a nice warm nutrient-rich environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

If similarities in the vitamin C pseudogene are evidence for common ancestry, then differences in the Y chromosome are presumably evidence against it.” [3]

Once again we see how evolutionists love science when it appears to support evolution, but ignore science when it refutes evolution. Wells’ argument is simple: If common descent is really true, then a common gene should be very similar [4] across species. The fact that a very common gene – the Y Chromosome – is not refutes the “common descent” theory. This of course, is not enough to make evolutionists disbelieve the common descent theory, because for many evolutionists, they’re not really interested in the science; they’re in it for the philosophy – a philosophy that says there is no God.

But they would do well to consider the logical conclusion to their argument, because as we’ll see, continuing to support GULO as evidence of common descent refutes evolution in another way.

Defending GULO refutes Evolution

Wells’ observation is just for starters. As mentioned above research has shown that the break occurs in what is considered a “hot spot” – a location that has a propensity to break, or as one abstract put it:

GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. [5]

In other words, the breaks occur where changes are frequent and thus more likely. Thus it’s sheer wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists that “the break” occurred in a distant ancestor, and not simply broken multiple times in a location that has a propensity to break causing a mutation, resulting in – in this case – a broken GULO gene.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

I think I have a paper from biology class explaining the latest "abstract" on abiogenesis. The talk about how around ten or so "building blocks" of a cell came together before they don't know what made it become alive. They don't talk about the multiple characteristics of the lipid bi-layer necessary for a living cell, they ton't talk about the mind boggling complexity of DNA or the mind boggling complexity of the mechanisms for producing proteins, correcting errors, or total reproduction. They talk like their story of how a few building blocks could have maybe gotten together and spontaneously came to life......and that spontaneous event covers all the millions of necessary parts and mechanisms of a single cell so we are supposed to believe they know what they are talking about when they say life emerged out of non-life for no good reason by chance. There is no need to teach that stuff in biology class. it's not science, its' a waste of time and taxpayer money.

1 point

Abstract

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.

Notice the title of this is "Abstract". Abstract is conjecture, hypothesis, it is not science. They're just making this stuff up as they go along, and why people pay them to do it is as much of a mystery as how anybody could believe life emerged without meaning or value.

SlapShot(2608) Clarified
1 point

Hmm..not really making it up as we go along, but rather forming a Theory that relies upon decades of DNA study.

The article will explain all this. And how by counting and verifying the exact sequence in the genomes we can determine where certain organisms--like you and me, for example, originate.

These guys in the study have counted the genome strand to extreme lengths. It's like following a trail of genetic markers, or bread crumbs, that lead to a final destination, on a path.

So it is NOT walking aorund blindly,but following exact and proven methods.

If you refute the findings in this article, you are saying that Geneticists don't know how to read DNA. So you are saying that all that DNA reading and analysis we do, like for paternity tests and crime forensics, and decoding the human genome--which was done over a decade ago!--is wrong. Is false science. Is bogus.

I am sorry but anybody making such a claim I think would be just plain delusional. Living in an extreme state of denial. Also they would be somewhat hypocritical. As they trust science and use it every day, as with their computers and their medications and their medical care, but when it comes to highly educated Geneticists and Biologists, all of a sudden science is ignorant.

IOW, it just doesn't wash, amigo.

Anyway, hope you enjoy the article, or at least get a little food for though. Thanks for reading and civilly participating in my debate.

SS

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

If similarities in the vitamin C pseudogene are evidence for common ancestry, then differences in the Y chromosome are presumably evidence against it.” [3]

Once again we see how evolutionists love science when it appears to support evolution, but ignore science when it refutes evolution. Wells’ argument is simple: If common descent is really true, then a common gene should be very similar [4] across species. The fact that a very common gene – the Y Chromosome – is not refutes the “common descent” theory. This of course, is not enough to make evolutionists disbelieve the common descent theory, because for many evolutionists, they’re not really interested in the science; they’re in it for the philosophy – a philosophy that says there is no God.

ProLogos(2793) Disputed
1 point

These guys in the study have counted the genome strand to extreme lengths. It's like following a trail of genetic markers, or bread crumbs, that lead to a final destination, on a path.

So it is NOT walking aorund blindly,but following exact and proven methods.

Following a path and hoping to come across something, is called walking around blindly.

If you refute the findings in this article, you are saying that Geneticists don't know how to read DNA.

No saying that people will bullshit their way to a pseudotruth.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

The dispute is not about reading the DNA. The DNA can be read the same as these words can be read, you can see them and show them to others. The dispute is about the insertion of beliefs regarding the past. There is no dispute about paternity tests or crime forensics (though forensics may be corrupt due to the fallibility or purposeful deception of investigators and a wrongful conviction may result.)

I do not refute the findings of the article when it comes to reading the DNA. I do refute the assumptions they started with, and those same assumptions concluded. Those assumptions are hypothesis and not science, and by clinging to those hypothesis the researchers are twisting their science to fit their beliefs, adding beliefs which are not observable scientifically and suppressing contrary observable data.....and the main tool of that suppression is orchestrated insult and ridicule against people who reject their beliefs.

If similarities in the vitamin C pseudogene are evidence for common ancestry, then differences in the Y chromosome are presumably evidence against it.” [3]

Once again we see how evolutionists love science when it appears to support evolution, but ignore science when it refutes evolution. Wells’ argument is simple: If common descent is really true, then a common gene should be very similar [4] across species. The fact that a very common gene – the Y Chromosome – is not refutes the “common descent” theory. This of course, is not enough to make evolutionists disbelieve the common descent theory, because for many evolutionists, they’re not really interested in the science; they’re in it for the philosophy – a philosophy that says there is no God.

But they would do well to consider the logical conclusion to their argument, because as we’ll see, continuing to support GULO as evidence of common descent refutes evolution in another way.

Defending GULO refutes Evolution

Wells’ observation is just for starters. As mentioned above research has shown that the break occurs in what is considered a “hot spot” – a location that has a propensity to break, or as one abstract put it:

GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. [5]

In other words, the breaks occur where changes are frequent and thus more likely. Thus it’s sheer wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists that “the break” occurred in a distant ancestor, and not simply broken multiple times in a location that has a propensity to break causing a mutation, resulting in – in this case – a broken GULO gene.

They're lying to you, my friend. Evolution is not science.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Defending GULO refutes Evolution

Wells’ observation is just for starters. As mentioned above research has shown that the break occurs in what is considered a “hot spot” – a location that has a propensity to break, or as one abstract put it:

GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. [5]

In other words, the breaks occur where changes are frequent and thus more likely. Thus it’s sheer wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists that “the break” occurred in a distant ancestor, and not simply broken multiple times in a location that has a propensity to break causing a mutation, resulting in – in this case – a broken GULO gene.

In an effort to save the theory, evolutionists will counter that is simply statistically impossible. If they do so they will be guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading – because they use the very same argument – multiple separate changes – themselves. This is particularly evident in defense of “convergent evolution”, where theoretically different species converge on the same trait or ability via different evolutionary paths. For example evolutionists believe that the eye has evolved separately and independently many, many times:

“Animal eyes are an excellent example of convergent evolution. All the eyes from different animals across the planet today did not evolve from the same conceptual eye. In fact, eyes have evolved numerous times in different lineages.” Scott Edwards, Harvard University [6]

You may have seen how the eyes of cats and other animals glow in the dark. That effect is caused by a reflective surface at the back of the eyes called the Tapetum Lucidum. Evolutionists say the same thing about this phenomenon – that it also evolved independently many times:

“But I think really the most interesting thing about the evolution of the tapetum is that it’s such a good solution to enhancing sensitivity, that many many different groups of mammals have arrived at this same solution independently.” Chris Kirk, University of Texas [7]

So if evolutionists insist that both the eyes themselves, and the enhancement to the eyes made by the Tapetum which improves night vision and causes glowing eyes – can evolve multiple time independently; how can they then turn around and state that the mutations that broke the GULO pseudogene did not do so multiple times independently showing up in different species? Just as eyes, and glowing night eyes show up in different species according to the theory by multiple independent evolutionary paths, how can they maintain GULU didn’t break in multiple independent species? To maintain GULO could not have thus broken independently shows them to be using the logical fallacy of special pleading to try to hang on to a failed argument. Put another way, evolutionists cannot claim GULO could not have broken multiple times independently without also having to admit that things like eyes and the tapetum could not have evolved multiple times independently. And if that is their position – that eyes could not have evolved that way – they leave themselves without an explanation of why eyes and the tapedum exist in multiple species.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

If you refute the findings in this article, you are saying that Geneticists don't know how to read DNA. So you are saying that all that DNA reading and analysis we do, like for paternity tests and crime forensics, and decoding the human genome--which was done over a decade ago!--is wrong. Is false science. Is bogus.

I am sorry but anybody making such a claim I think would be just plain delusional. Living in an extreme state of denial. Also they would be somewhat hypocritical. As they trust science and use it every day, as with their computers and their medications and their medical care, but when it comes to highly educated Geneticists and Biologists, all of a sudden science is ignorant.

IOW, it just doesn't wash, amigo.

Anyway, hope you enjoy the article, or at least get a little food for though. Thanks for reading and civilly participating in my debate.

SS

This argument is nothing but a baseless insult. Nobody refutes observable science, what is refuted is the beliefs inserted regarding the past. Those beliefs are not science, and do not require reading DNA any more than reading DNA requires those beliefs. Using insults is a childish method of discussion, and that is not an insult but rather an observation regarding the tactics you are using trying to claim only those who believe in evolution are capable of doing DNA based paternity tests. Friend, that's a cheap insult, and it's childish. It's the same garbage Bill Nye used when debating Ken Ham. Evolution is a waste of time, a distraction from real science. You can read the DNA code without inserting evolutionary beliefs. No field of science requires belief in evolution. The only reason people feel they need to believe in evolution is because they don't want to believe God rules over nature and that would mean He is over them...they don't want God telling them what they should or should not do because they love the pleasures of their own lusts, usually sexual but also money and power that comes with portraying themselves as intellectually superior. I don't buy it, and I want my money back from the time I spent actually trying to believe it when I was young. They sure have enough money invested in it that they could compensate me for the lost time.

SlapShot(2608) Clarified
1 point

Notice the title of this is "Abstract". Abstract is conjecture, hypothesis, it is not science.

But it IS science, Mr. Saint.

An abstract as used in regards to science essays or articles is simply a detailed analysis or summation of a previous in-depth study or experiment. It is meant as a summation--usually for the layman--of a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Here is more on what we call "abstracts." Rest assured, they are nothing like you would use the term regarding art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_(summary) )

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

it's an abstract because it is not something that can be observed. It's all a bunch of busy work starting with a hypothesis and ending with a hypothesis pretending the hypothesis is now changed to fact.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Abstract means they started with a certain belief and did some studies and still have the same belief. It's not science. The abstract is a belief that cannot be studied scientifically.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

it's mumbo jumbo word play trying to hide the fact that they are believing things which are not scientifically observable. Take away the statements of belief in the abstract and what remains is observable scientific facts. Other observable scientific facts are contrary to the abstract, so the abstract should be discarded.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

The "Abstract" about dolphin drafting is a lot different than the "Abstract" about LUCA. Dolfin drafting is observable science that does not have to be studied backwards but can be studied by one fact on top of the other. They're playing fast and loose with the usage of "Abstract", it's just more of the elites pretending to be superior by how they manipulate word usage.......and they get paid big bucks for it...it's a scam. It's like Plato and whoever argued about philosophy of cylinders and circles .......they're just passing time making things up to impress each other with word play. Wasting time and getting paid for it.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

again, the "Abstract" of dolphin drafting is observable science, the abstract of LUCA is a belief. They're smearing the meaning of Abstract as if it's a concept that shows they are elites, implying an abstract of what can be observed in dolphin drafting is the same as the abstract beliefs used to promote LUCA. I have a lot more respect for a soldier or even a hockey player (my least enjoyable sport to watch, sorry Slappy, I never could get hockey. I played football and like to watch it sometimes, played baseball a little.....never could get hockey, they just chase that puck around until somebody gets mad and then they have a brawl. Why don't they just not bother with suiting up and at the starting bell just have a big brawl?)......a lot more respect for a soldier or a hockey player than I have for a guy who claims his "abstract" of LUCA is science.

ProLogos(2793) Clarified
1 point

Ooooh you corrected him on a definition but not on Luca

Which is what the debate is about.

Way to go smarty pants

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

They are using the term "abstract" the same as the term is used for art. The concept is talked up, so the value of the abstract depends on the wording, the fluff of the commentators, the conversational value added by talking about the belief of what is in the abstract. The word "abstract" allows for huge stretches of belief, stretches logically invalid except in the abstract which is intangible.

Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

Notice the title of this is "Abstract". Abstract is conjecture, hypothesis, it is not science. They're just making this stuff up as they go along, and why people pay them to do it is as much of a mystery as how anybody could believe life emerged without meaning or value.

LOL! LOL! ROFL!!!!

Abstract isnt the title you fatty moron doggy idiot punk. It means it is a summary rather than the full text. You really are completely without education arent you? They didnt have schools where you grew up? Idiot.

1 point

The New York Times finds that Science finds Key to the Origin of Life! Depending on the New York Times to find Key to the Origin of Life is just laughable.

SlapShot(2608) Disputed
1 point

Your interpretation of the article is what's laughable.

The NYT did NOT do the study. Rather, the article from the link happens to be in that newspaper. I am sure the study and it's findings were published elsewhere as well. I can find some other reports if the LUCA study if it is too difficult for you to research yourself.

SS

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

The link just happens to be in the New York Times that should make both of them creditable then don't you think. Then you linked the New York Times again. So it is 3 times creditable.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

Anything the New York Times puts up should be true and correct because they are known for true and correct as it plays out so you wrote and linked.

1 point

A key excerpt from the article................

Their starting point was the known protein-coding genes of bacteria and archaea. Some six million such genes have accumulated over the last 20 years in DNA databanks as scientists with the new decoding machines have deposited gene sequences from thousands of microbes.

Genes that do the same thing in a human and a mouse are generally related by common descent from an ancestral gene in the first mammal. So by comparing their sequence of DNA letters, genes can be arranged in evolutionary family trees, a property that enabled Dr. Martin and his colleagues to assign the six million genes to a much smaller number of gene families. Of these, only 355 met their criteria for having probably originated in Luca, the joint ancestor of bacteria and archaea.

Genes are adapted to an organism’s environment. So Dr. Martin hoped that by pinpointing the genes likely to have been present in Luca, he would also get a glimpse of where and how Luca lived. “I was flabbergasted at the result, I couldn’t believe it,” he said.

The 355 genes pointed quite precisely to an organism that lived in the conditions found in deep sea vents, the gassy, metal-laden, intensely hot plumes caused by seawater interacting with magma erupting through the ocean floor.

Deep sea vents are surrounded by exotic life-forms and, with their extreme chemistry, have long seemed places where life might have originated. The 355 genes ascribable to Luca include some that metabolize hydrogen as a source of energy as well as a gene for an enzyme called reverse gyrase, found only in microbes that live at extremely high temperatures, Dr. Martin and colleagues reported Monday in Nature Microbiology.

The finding has “significantly advanced our understanding of what Luca did for a living,” James O. McInerney of the University of Manchester wrote in a commentary, and provides “a very intriguing insight into life four billion years ago.”

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

The site I looked at explaining their reasoning for LUCA was a lot more detailed than the link you gave, heavy on genetic terms and research......the problem is that the data is interpreted according to beliefs while contrary data is ignored.

Oh yeah, that's the one I copy and pasted earlier titled "Abstract".

1 point

Interesting.

I don't know whether or not this truly was the ancestor of life on Earth. It's indeed possible that science got it wrong. But it's completely plausible this is right.

However, I find the story of Luca far more compelling than the narratives of bronze age literature.