Evolution News Origin Of Life

Last Universal Common Ancestor was a “sophisticated organism,” not a “crude assemblage of molecular parts”

Spread the love
Early earth?/Dave, Fotolia

From “Last Universal Common Ancestor More Complex Than Previously Thought,” ScienceDaily (Oct. 5, 2011), we learn:

Scientists call it LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, but they don’t know much about this great-grandparent of all living things. Many believe LUCA was little more than a crude assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup out of which evolution gradually constructed more complex forms. Some scientists still debate whether it was even a cell.

New evidence suggests that LUCA was a sophisticated organism after all, with a complex structure recognizable as a cell, researchers report. Their study appears in the journal Biology Direct.

And they still have a job? Amazing?

“You can’t assume that the whole story of life is just building and assembling things,” Whitfield said. “Some have argued that the reason that bacteria are so simple is because they have to live in extreme environments and they have to reproduce extremely quickly. So they may actually be reduced versions of what was there originally. According to this view, they’ve become streamlined genetically and structurally from what they originally were like. We may have underestimated how complex this common ancestor actually was.”

No argument here. There are many no-speculation examples of life forms
shedding complex parts for survival – the way one might abandon a grand piano in the wilderness.

We’ll leave the giant, gaping question for later.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

45 Replies to “Last Universal Common Ancestor was a “sophisticated organism,” not a “crude assemblage of molecular parts”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Michael Behe has a new article up on ENV:

    Wheel of Fortune: New Work by Thornton’s Group Supports Time-Asymmetric Dollo’s Law – Michael Behe – October 5, 2011
    Excerpt: The need to pass through multiple neutral steps while avoiding multiple likely-deleterious steps to produce a protein that has lost 99% of its activity is not a ringing example of the power of Darwinian processes. Rather, as mentioned above, it shows the strength of TADL. Darwinian selection will fit a protein to its current task as tightly as it can. In the process, it makes it extremely difficult to adapt to a new task or revert to an old task by random mutation plus selection.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51621.html

  2. 2

    Yet again I’ll point out that the LUCA is not the FUCA.

    Finding that the LUCA is complex tells you nothing about how complex its ancestors were.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    HMMM,

    Yet again I’ll point out that the LUCA is not the FUCA.

    Well since both LUCA and FUCA are imaginary constructs, born out of conjecture, perhaps you would care to show some ACTUAL EVIDENCE for something simpler than perhaps the parasitic mycoplasmal??? Remember Elizabeth, your belief that they must exist does not constitute ACTUAL EVIDENCE!!!

    Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
    “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?”
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/c.....2-2-29.pdf

    Mycoplasma Genitalium – The “Simplest” Life On Earth – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012738

    First-Ever Blueprint of ‘Minimal Cell’ Is More Complex Than Expected – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae’s transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    “At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....173027.htm

    There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism – November 2009
    Excerpt: In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....s-of-life/

    Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20091229a

    Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: “There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....-rock.html

    So much for ‘simple’ life!!!

    music & verse:

    Casting Crowns – Until The Whole World Hears W/Lyrics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9jVK9cZ2aw

    Colossians 1:16
    For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

  4. 4
    junkdnaforlife says:

    What for the love of peer review is the FUCA? The first self replicating molecule?

    Is this your camp?:

    “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.”

    Therefore in conflict with this camp:

    “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.”

    “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.”

    “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.”
    http://www.livescience.com/163.....mplex.html

    If by FUCA you mean: it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, then your idea is in conflict with current studies. It seems that FUCA is an illusion, the real issue being the complexity of LUCA. FUCA being an invention, a name your using to describe a less complex LUCA.

    The search for FUCA:
    FUCA

    FUCAII

  5. 5

    First Universal Common ancestor.

    As opposed to the Last.

    They aren’t the same thing. No reason why they should be, just as mitochondrial Eve needn’t be contemporaneous with Y chromosome Adam.

  6. 6

    Anyhoo, my point is that it’s a bit silly posting these Gotcha! stories about the LUCA being complex, when there is no reason to think the LUCA had no ancestors. The last common ancestor between you and your cousin is not the same person as the second last common ancestor. Being the last common ancestor of a group doesn’t mean you have no ancestors.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Anyhoo, my point is that it’s a bit silly posting these Gotcha! stories about the LUCA being complex,

    Well I’m sure you will just imagine whatever you need to, so to placate any discomfort you may have felt.

  8. 8
    Timbo says:

    BA, could you just try and write with a little bit of detachment? The childish petulant tone of your posts can be a real buzz kill.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    So are you saying that you don’t want me to say stuff like ‘Liar Liar pants on fire’ to neo-Darwinists??? How about delusional dogmatists??? is that better??? more adult??? Better yet how about you give me your e-mail address and I’ll send all my posts to you so you can proof read everything I write and preapprove it??? Would that make you happy???

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Timbo says:

    No.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    well then Timbo, I got a solution for your dislike of my posts, since you don’t want to rewrite them to suit your tastes, how bout you not read my posts in the first place if they upset you??? I pretty sure my feelings won’t be hurt if you stopped!! 🙂

  13. 13

    OK, ba77, explain to me why you think the Last Universal Common Ancestor must also have been the first.

    Thanks.

  14. 14
    gpuccio says:

    Elizabeth:

    As I already commented in the past, LUCA is a scientific concept, because we can support it with some facts: studying the existing proteome, we can make inferences (maybe right, maybe wrong, but anyway based on facts) about what proteins were present, say before the separation between bacteria and archea. That is scientific reasoning.

    FUCA, instead, is only myth. There are absolutely no facts supporting the existence of your “simpler precursors”, least of all about what they could have been, if they ever existed. There is no evidence, either in nature (fossils or other) or in the lab, that your FUCA simply can exist.

    There is nothing wrong in pure hypothesizing, but unless and until hypotheses are supported by at least some trace of facts, they cannot be called scientific reasoning, or constructively used in a discussion confronting dofferent scientific theories about OOL.

    For all we know, LUCA and FUCA may well be the same thing. I believe, based on evodence, that LUCA existed, and that we can have some idea of what it was and how it worked, and which proteins were already presebt at that level.

    What about FUCA? What can you realistically say about it? Beyond myth and fairy tales?

  15. 15

    Why should LUCA and FUCA be the same thing?

    Agreed, they could but why should they be? Even creationists agree that Chromosomal Adam (the last common human paternal ancestor) was Noah, not Adam.

    Knowing (or inferring) who the last common ancestor doesn’t tell you anything about who the first was.

    If the LUCA could exist, so could its parent.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Elizabeth, as gpuccio has clearly asked:

    What can you realistically say about it? Beyond myth and fairy tales?

    i.e. Elizabeth, where is your ACTUAL EVIDENCE instead of merely your belief that is must have existed?,,, As far as hard evidence goes, this is the picture that is coming out:

    The evidence scientists have discovered in the geologic record is stunning in its support of the anthropic hypothesis and is very ‘surprising’ to neo-Darwinists. The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of ‘photosynthetic’ life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks.

    U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R

    Moreover, evidence for ‘sulfate reducing’ bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria:

    When Did Life First Appear on Earth? – Fazale Rana – December 2010
    Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.
    http://www.reasons.org/when-di.....pear-earth

    Thus we now have mounting evidence for ‘interdependent’ bacterial life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found by scientists on earth. Which gives strong empirical indication, not merely imagination, that life appeared on Earth as soon as water appeared on Earth!
    And contrary to popular belief, ‘just add water’ does not make life inevitable:

    Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis – Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.
    http://origins.swau.edu/papers.....fault.html

    Moreover, as Fuz Rana indicated in the paper I referenced, we have evidence of sulfate reducing bacteria as well as photosynthetic bacteria in the most ancient sedimentary rocks. This is another ‘surprising’ empirical finding!!,,, On the third page of this following site there is a illustration that shows some of the interdependent, ‘life-enabling’, biogeochemical complexity of different types of bacterial life on Earth.,,,

    Microbial Mat Ecology – Image on page 92 (third page down)
    http://www.dsls.usra.edu/biolo.....nit2.2.pdf

    ,,,Please note, that if even one type of bacteria group did not exist in this complex cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the third page of the preceding site, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but they must now also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive. As well, though not clearly illustrated in the illustration on the preceding site, please note that a long term tectonic cycle, of the turnover the Earth’s crustal rocks, must also be fine-tuned to a certain degree with the bacteria and thus plays a important ‘foundational’ role in the overall ecology of the biogeochemical system that must be accounted for as well.

    continued later,,,

  17. 17

    ba77: assuming that the LUCA existed, then it is very unlikely not to have been one individual organism, but a population of similar individuals.

    Are you proposing that that population was created, ex nihilo, on planet earth?

    Why should that members of that ancestral population not themselves have had ancestors?

    That seems like a faith position to me.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    But perhaps the most damaging thing to the materialistic belief that life ’emerged’ from some prebiotic chemical broth (a ‘prebiotic broth’ for which they have no evidence),

    The Primordial Soup Myth:
    Excerpt: “Accordingly, Abelson(1966), Hull(1960), Sillen(1965), and many others have criticized the hypothesis that the primitive ocean, unlike the contemporary ocean, was a “thick soup” containing all of the micromolecules required for the next stage of molecular evolution. The concept of a primitive “thick soup” or “primordial broth” is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support.” – Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose on page 37 in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life.

    is this finding:

    Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Gregory S. Engel, Nature (12 April 2007)
    Photosynthetic complexes are exquisitely tuned to capture solar light efficiently, and then transmit the excitation energy to reaction centres, where long term energy storage is initiated.,,,, This wavelike characteristic of the energy transfer within the photosynthetic complex can explain its extreme efficiency, in that it allows the complexes to sample vast areas of phase space to find the most efficient path. —- Conclusion? Obviously Photosynthesis is a brilliant piece of design by “Someone” who even knows how quantum mechanics works.

    Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis: Algae Familiar With These Processes for Nearly Two Billion Years – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: “We were astonished to find clear evidence of long-lived quantum mechanical states involved in moving the energy. Our result suggests that the energy of absorbed light resides in two places at once — a quantum superposition state, or coherence — and such a state lies at the heart of quantum mechanical theory.”,,, “It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans,” says Scholes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....131356.htm

    Life Masters Physics – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Collini et al.2 report evidence suggesting that a process known as quantum coherence ‘wires’ together distant molecules in the light-harvesting apparatus of marine cryptophyte algae.,,,“Intriguingly, recent work has documented that light-absorbing molecules in some photosynthetic proteins capture and transfer energy according to quantum-mechanical probability laws instead of classical laws at temperatures up to 180 K,”. ,,, “This contrasts with the long-held view that long-range quantum coherence between molecules cannot be sustained in complex biological systems, even at low temperatures.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100210a

    The reason that this ‘quantum photosynthesis’ finding is absolutely crushing to the atheists’s materialistic belief that life simply ’emerged’ from some prebiotic chemical broth, is that this reductive materialism, which atheists hold, is falsified as to being the ’cause’ for quantum entanglement!:

    Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism/Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

    i.e. a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause must be supplied to explain photosynthesis!!! This is more than a slight problem for materialistic atheists! The following video gives a hint of just how ‘spooky’, to use Einstein’s infamous word, it is to find quantum action to be necessary for photosynthetic life:

    Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

    To solidify my basis for inferring the necessity of a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain photosynthesis, I would like to refer to the quantum wave collapse of a photon;

    Wave function
    Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ctor_space

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1)
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    Single photons to soak up data:
    Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201

    It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?

    Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon
    Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.
    http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

    Now, I find this to be absolutely fascinating, a photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon collapses, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ‘1 or 0′ state, out of a infinite number of possibilities it could have collapsed to!! Now my question to atheists is this, exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain explain quantum wave collapse of a photon???

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    verse and music:

    John 1:4-5
    In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    Jeremy Camp – The Way (Official Music Video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q6o4sbndVE

    further notes:

    Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light – Walter Bradley – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552

    Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water – graphs
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....aGh4MmdnOQ

    Special Relativity of Photons & Virtual Particles – Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674

    Water’s remarkable capabilities – December 2010 – Peer Reviewed
    Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. … Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42211.html

    Protein Folding: One Picture Per Millisecond Illuminates The Process – 2008
    Excerpt: The RUB-chemists initiated the folding process and then monitored the course of events. It turned out that within less than ten milliseconds, the motions of the water network were altered as well as the protein itself being restructured. “These two processes practically take place simultaneously“, Prof. Havenith-Newen states, “they are strongly correlated.“ These observations support the yet controversial suggestion that water plays a fundamental role in protein folding, and thus in protein function, and does not stay passive.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....075610.htm

    Water Is ‘Designer Fluid’ That Helps Proteins Change Shape – 2008
    Excerpt: “When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....113314.htm

    etc.. etc..

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Elizabeth, I hear crickets from you in response to quantum photosynthesis?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-402189

    Elizabeth are you feeling well? I have never seen you at a loss for shallow excuse, ahem, I mean loss for words to explain away, ahem, I mean explain evidence against neo-Darwinism.

  21. 21

    I’m afraid I do not follow your argument ba77.

    I find your quantum arguments baffling, possibly because I am not a quantum physicist, and possibly because you are not.

    Perhaps a quantum physicist could help us both out.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Elizabeth, glad to see you are not sick and are ready to lie for Darwin, you state:

    Perhaps a quantum physicist could help us both out.

    So you did not like the Alain Aspect video on the falsification of local realism. Well perhaps these papers will help:

    The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:

    Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
    Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....alism.html

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    It is really not that hard Elizabeth, basically Aspect has shown that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a ‘local’, within space and time, ’cause’ to explain quantum entanglement, and thus since quantum entanglement is found to be necessary for photosynthesis, then it is logically follows that it is impossible for the ‘within space and time material causes’ of neo-Darwinism to explain the origination of photosynthesis in the first life on earth!!! Perhaps Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, can help us work out the implications of all this quantum stuff???

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

  23. 23
    junkdnaforlife says:

    it appears “hidden variables” has lost some thunder

  24. 24
    Collin says:

    You have a point. But I think that whatever shows more complexity, earlier in time, lends support to ID, even if only slightly.

  25. 25
    Collin says:

    Elizabeth,

    You are the one who is positing a FUCA. What evidence do you have?

  26. 26

    All I am suggesting is that the LUCA was one of a population of organisms that had ancestors. What is so revolutionary about that?

    The alternative is that they were created, ex nihilo, intact. What evidence do you have for that much more extraordinary claim?

  27. 27

    ba77: I don’t lie.

    I’m going to ignore you again. I am a tolerant woman, but for some reason I have an aversion to being called a liar.

    I expect I’ll relent, as I’m also fairly forgiving, but for now you are on the naughty step.

    See you around.

  28. 28

    Not quite sure what you mean. Could you rephrase?

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Elizabeth, in case you don’t find Alain Aspect and Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry up to your demanding tastes for solid empirical evidence, (biting tongue in sarcasm), that local realism is falsified, perhaps Anton Zeilinger’s work in quantum mechanics will meet your tastes?

    ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
    Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm

    Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation – Anton Zeilinger – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5705317/

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in breakthroughs of quantum teleportation and quantum information:
    http://www.metanexus.net/Magaz.....fault.aspx

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Elizabeth, ‘I don’t lie.,’, and yet I’ve seen you repeatedly misrepresent the evidence, though corrected over and over by many people here on UD, and if that is not lying then you are intellectually dishonest to the point of self-deception!!

  31. 31

    Alternatively, I am correct.

    Depends where you are standing I guess. Whatever. I post in good faith, and if I am persuaded I am wrong, I change my view.

    If I am not persuaded, I do not.

    I hope that is true of everyone here.

  32. 32
    junkdnaforlife says:

    liz, what is considered extraordinary is a subjective claim.

  33. 33

    What “subjective claim”?

    I’m not “claiming” anything. I’m just pointing out that the last common ancestor of a population is not necessarily the first. Mitochondrial Eve was one of a population of human beings, and while being our last common maternal ancestor, was certainly not our first, and had a human mother

    So the Last Common Universal Ancestor could only have been also the first if it had been created ex nihilo, and even even if you think that the First Common Ancestor was created ex nihilo, there is no logical reason to assume that it was the same organism as the Last. As I said, even Creationists accept that while they insist that the Last Common maternal ancestor is Eve, that the last common paternal ancesstor is Noah, the first being, of course Adam.

    That means that any inferences you make about the properties of the LUCA are not necessarily those of the FUCA, and so touting the properties of the LUCA as though they are necessarily properties of the FUCA is simple error.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    And again, as asked here,,,

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-402134

    ,,,besides your imagination, where is your empirical evidence that such a creature ever actually existed???

  35. 35

    Well, read the OP.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Well again as gpuccio asked:

    What about FUCA? What can you realistically say about it? Beyond myth and fairy tales?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-402177

    your belief that FUCA must have existed does not in any way, shape or form, constitute ACTUAL EVIDENCE that it did exist. Just because you can imagine something might be real does not make it real!!! You MUST show that your belief is at least scientifically feasible as far as reality itself is concerned, and, seeing the jaw dropping complexity of the ‘simplest life’ on earth, micoplasmal, good luck with all that!!!

  37. 37

    Well, if LUCA existed, ba77, and had no forebears, then it was also the FUCA.

    So if you think the LUCA existed, you also think the FUCA existed.

    What I’m pointing out, is that one is not necessarily the same as the other, and any inference based on that assumption is based on an unsupported premise.

  38. 38
    Eugene S says:

    Elizabeth,

    Please do not say anything like that in relation to Adam and Eve. I strongly object. Would you like to be called that yourself? Away with LUCA/FUCA, Adam and Eve are my real ancestors. Please don’t.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    And what I, and others, are repeatedly pointing out to you, and that you refuse to accept, is that you have ZERO empirical evidence to support your contention that either FUCA and/or LUCA ACTUALLY existed. All you have is merely wishful materialistic/Darwinian speculation that life arose naturalistically and that therefore these creatures MUST have existed, because you simply cannot imagine that life was created suddenly by a intelligent agent! This reminds me very much of the dogmatic stance against the ex-nihilo creation of the universe even though all indications pointed to it!!! Moreover, The finding, in the paper in the OP, that the imaginary LUCA must have been more complex than previously envisioned/imagined is in fact a very funny turn of events, for it points out that where actual empirical evidence is allowed to somewhat inform these materialistic speculations, on what the first life should be like according to Darwinism, it turns Darwinian thinking for a ‘simple’ first life on its head!! But the bottom line is that basically the whole thing LUCA and FUCA matter has been a romp through unsupported conjecture that is supported with nothing but the imaginary belief that these creatures must have existed prior to what we have actual evidence for in biogeochemical markers in the oldest sedimentary rocks on earth.

  40. 40

    Oh right. I didn’t realise you were actually disputing universal common ancestry.

    I think I had the idea that that wasn’t disputed by most ID proponents.

  41. 41

    Sorry Eugene, but I don’t understand your objection. Could you rephrase your request? I don’t know what it is you are objecting to.

    My point is an extremely simple mathematical one.

  42. 42
    Eugene S says:

    Elizabeth,

    This is simply not nice, to me. Adam and Eve were real people, like your or my parents, not scientific or religious concepts. Would that be okay for you to be addressed as mitochondrial Liz? I don’t think so.

  43. 43

    Apologies, then, Eugene. I have often read (indeed I’ve read it here), that Mitochondrial Eve (as identified by geneticists) was Eve, wife of Adam, and that Y-chromosome Adam (ditto) must have been Noah. Indeed, someone here, I think it may have been ba77, was actually arguing that the fact that geneticists think that Y-chromosome Adam lived later than Mitochondrial Eve, is supportive evidence for the Flood bottleneck.

    So, apologies for any inadvertent offence I caused you.

    I should say that my own view is that Adam and Eve are mythical, not real people, and that the woman geneticists call “mitochondrial Eve” was one of many similar women, probably living in Africa.

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Interesting, rather than honestly admitting that you are dealing with ‘myth and fairy tale’, as gpuccio put it, and that you have ZERO evidence to back up your claim for FUCA, you allude to a supposed ‘consensus’ of belief of others??? And exactly why should empirical science care one iota about unsubstantiated beliefs if, and when, they disagree with the empirical evidence, whether they are held by one individual or even when they are held by a ‘consensus’ of individuals??? Science could care less about what is popularly believed and only cares about what you can verify to be true!!!

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. – Michael Crichton
    http://s8int.com/crichton.html

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Non-Local Quantum Entanglement In Photosynthesis – video with notes in description
    http://vimeo.com/30235178

Leave a Reply