The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: cooperton

I am not mocking, I am stating the very obvious. I'll also state, that for someone who is trying to discredit evolution, you are royally munting the languate. "Germ:" *snicker*

I've constructed phylogenetic diagrams. I've done experiments to confirm molecular clocks estimates. Its part of what you do to train in Bioinformatics.

So I DO understand what is meant by what YOU are mocking. Show how this "implication" is meaningless. Saying it is so, is not making it so. I've read the paper have you? ("Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test". Nature 465 (7295): 168–9.)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I am not mocking, I am stating the very obvious. I'll also state, that for someone who is trying to discredit evolution, you are royally munting the languate. "Germ:" *snicker*

I've constructed phylogenetic diagrams. I've done experiments to confirm molecular clocks estimates. Its part of what you do to train in Bioinformatics.

So I DO understand what is meant by what YOU are mocking. Show how this "implication" is meaningless. Saying it is so, is not making it so. I've read the paper have you? ("Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test". Nature 465 (7295): 168–9.)

Meaningless stuff you just said. Stop your filibustering mockery and Answer the question: Yes or no - the theory of evolution claims our greatest grandparent (most distant ancestor) was a unicellular organism?

a reply to: cooperton

I think you are somewhat confused here.

The theory of evolution simply states: Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.. (1)

So no the theory of evolution does NOT state that. Rather that paper is evidence which supports evolution as a theory. Theories do not state every single finding. So to be succinct. That paper, provides evidence that evolution is occurring, and that from available data, we evolved from a unicellular organism, which used DNA as a means of genetic irritability.

What this means is that that paper is evidence, not the theory.

So if you are going to argue what the "theory of evolution" does or does not state. Know what it actually is. If you can't understand that, you should stay of the internet. OR stick to creationist sites.

I've attended lectures from both of the authors in the paper you are talking about (2) I live in the same country (New Zealand), and I was doing my further education into Bioinformatics at the time that paper came out.

(1) Hall, Brian K.; Hallgrímsson, Benedikt (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
(2) NATURE|Vol 465|13 May 2010

a reply to: cooperton

If common ancestry isn't highly probable, then why does life on Earth have common genes?



You don't understand common ancestry so perhaps you should stop talking about it.

a reply to: cooperton

Meaningless stuff you just said. Stop your filibustering mockery and Answer the question: Yes or no - the theory of evolution claims our greatest grandparent (most distant ancestor) was a unicellular organism?

No it does NOT. And if you haven't learned what common ancestry means by now, perhaps you should take up another subject i.e. hamburger flipping??

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

So if you are going to argue what the "theory of evolution" does or does not state. Know what it actually is.

No one can, there's no universal definition. You never answered yes or no - are you admitting that our greatest grandparent, indicated by phylogenetics, is a unicellular organism?

a reply to: Phantom423

They don't know the difference between "theory of X" and "once accepting the theory of X to be the most likely case, what else is there to see". Bioinformatics is a broad discipline, and this was Computational evolutionary biology.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

No it does NOT. And if you haven't learned what common ancestry means by now, perhaps you should take up another subject i.e. hamburger flipping??

Ahh but it does... Where else would we have came from, according to phylogenetics? How could our ancestry be dislodged from this ancestral unicellular organism? Tell me, without mockery. According to your theory, your greatest grandparent was a unicellular organism.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

They don't know the difference between "theory of X" and "once accepting the theory of X to be the most likely case, what else is there to see". Bioinformatics is a broad discipline, and this was Computational evolutionary biology.

Well, you can't get blood from a stone. Hammering on their empty heads is useless. However, it is important to state what is known. You never let ignorance get the upper hand!

a reply to: cooperton

You also do not read what people reply to you.

So no the theory of evolution does NOT state that. Rather that paper is evidence which supports evolution as a theory. Theories do not state every single finding. So to be succinct. That paper, provides evidence that evolution is occurring, and that from available data, we evolved from a unicellular organism, which used DNA as a means of genetic irritability.

Second word in.... NO.

So to make it clear.

NO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT STATE THAT.

What it states in simplest does not specify what it was we evolved from, just that we do evolve.

Also there are accepted definitions. You just don't know where to find them. Hint try a text book.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Well, you can't get blood from a stone. Hammering on their empty heads is useless. However, it is important to state what is known. You never let ignorance get the upper hand!

Stop the mockery and answer the question. According to phylogenetics, how could our greatest grandparent not be the unicellular organism that was the beginning of life?

a reply to: cooperton

Once again, common ancestry doesn't mean you were once an amoeba. It means that all life on this planet has a common denominator.

If you were privileged to go to another planet and you were the chief biologist, the first thing you would do is take samples from the variety of life on that planet. If every living organism had a commonality that exceeded 50%, what would be your OBJECTIVE conclusion? An OBJECTIVE conclusion would be that they all had SOMETHING IN COMMON. Get it?

originally posted by: Noinden


NO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT STATE THAT.

Not explicitly, but what else would be our greatest ancestor from which we would have evolved? Obviously it would be the first lifeform, which was (theoretically) a unicellular organism.

a reply to: cooperton

What are you referring to in the literature? Post a few citations which specifically say that humans were once a unicellular organisms.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Once again, common ancestry doesn't mean you were once an amoeba.

wtf? Of course not.

It means that all life on this planet has a common denominator.

Yes, which is the unicellular organism which is theoretically our greatest grandparent.

a reply to: cooperton

No. Because your interpretation is literal and not in the context of molecular biology and science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

What are you referring to in the literature? Post a few citations which specifically say that humans were once a unicellular organisms.

a Phylogenetic Tree shows that if you trace the lineage from you all the way back to the original lifeform, you will eventually come to a unicellular organism - therefore, your greatest grandparent was a unicellular organism.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that is a phyogenetic tree which is a graphic representation of COMMON ANCESTRY. It was not intended to incorporate divergence and speciation.

The definition of life and of a species is the ability to REPRODUCE and to REPRODUCE WITH EACH OTHER. Once a species cannot reproduce with another organism, it is ANOTHER SPECIES.

a reply to: cooperton

Are you trained in the sciences involved in evolution? Published? If you are, you can try an change the definition. Otherwise, you do not get to do that. Despite my Bioinformatical training, I don't get to change it.

So don't quibble, you were answered.

NO IT DOES NOT STATE THAT.

End of story. Move along citizen...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Are you trained in the sciences involved in evolution? Published? If you are, you can try an change the definition. Otherwise, you do not get to do that. Despite my Bioinformatical training, I don't get to change it.

So don't quibble, you were answered.

NO IT DOES NOT STATE THAT.

End of story. Move along citizen...

you're a joke

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, that is a phyogenetic tree which is a graphic representation of COMMON ANCESTRY. It was not intended to incorporate divergence and speciation.

The definition of life and of a species is the ability to REPRODUCE and to REPRODUCE WITH EACH OTHER. Once a species cannot reproduce with another organism, it is ANOTHER SPECIES.

How would our common ancestor not be the first lifeform? Since (theoretically) the first lifeform would be our ancestor, it would make it our greatest grandparent.