Another uproar around the fabled Tree of Life

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 16, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life, Tree of life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Both these science journal contributions are hidden behind paywalls:

Feature frequency profile-based phylogenies are inaccurate

and

Reply to Li et al.: Organism tree of life: Gene phylogeny vs. whole-proteome phylogeny.

Two things:

It’s unclear why naturalist atheists think that all life must have arisen from a single cell. Could one be a naturalist atheist but still allow for multiple origins of life? So many of the explosions around the alleged Tree of Life seem to point back to a narrow view of that particular matter. Some of us would be interested to know why the narrow view is supposed to be so critical. Assuming it’s even discussable, of course.

Also: Why are so many interesting discussions paywalled? Isn’t the public paying for most of this stuff?

Comments

While they try to figure out how to come up with a coherent and comprehensive explanation for the OOL and the famous “tree” that seems to resemble a messy bush or bird nest, science research continues to reveal more functional complexity and complex functionality in the biological systems. Is there any possibility that they will eventually realize that the game is over? Didn’t they get the memo yet? :) jawa

They can’t accept multiple OOL events because they can’t figure out how to explain any at all. jawa

@8: “Chemoton” Gimme a break. Low grade Bovine excreta. (At best) There they go again, puffing up modest results. It’s just wishful thinking. jawa

Here’s the guy who should get the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/12/he-may-have-found-the-key-to-origins-of-life-tibor-ganti-chemoton/ Sorry Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak. You should have submitted your proposal much faster. The Magyar professor’s idea made it first. Should the award be given to his heirs? jawa

The odd thing is that Darwinians always assume multiple paths (convergent evolution) for various details and functions, but assume only one path for the first cell. Why should it be different? polistra

Earth to seversky- there isn't a mechanism that can turn a single celled organism into the diversity of life. Changes to DNA can't do it as DNA only codes for RNA sequences. OTOH, two humans could easily populate the world with humans given enough time. ET

Paywalling is definitely wrong for tax-funded research. I've been involved in some, and the contracts are CLEAR. The work must be public-domain, not copyrighted, not for profit. When journals were only on paper, paying for printing made some sense, but in the web context it doesn't make sense. The journals are misapplying the business model of regular magazines, where the magazine pays the author to purchase the copyright and then distributes to make profit on the purchase. Sci journals don't pay the author; more often they require payment from the author! polistra

It's a catch 22. If only one Luca, then it was a materialist miracle. If more than one, then how come the unity of life and how come no more abiogenesis ? Nonlin.org

Well done, Seversky, breaking free of Darwinian evolution and LUCA, at last. It was Darwin who wrote “... analogy would lead me one step further namely to the belief that all animals have descended from some one prototype.’ Belfast

While Darwin said, "a few, or only one," modern evolutionists have basically settled on "only one" based on the near universal similarity of the DNA code and biochemistry. Indeed a common source is the best explanation; a common DESIGNER. aarceng

I don't think we need assume that all life descended from a single ancestral cell, any more than we need assume that over 7 billion human beings descended from a single unmarried couple who came into existence fully-formed a few millennia back. Seversky

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply