All life evolved from single cell, study finds

[evolved yet?]

Source
(Pictures: "Seven Major 'Missing Links' Since Darwin.")
Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.
The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.
The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.
But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.
(Also see "Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds.")
Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.
The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.
(As of publication time, requests for interviews with several creationist scientists had been either declined or unanswered.)

Thoughts? opinions?

 

[Revoltingest]

People always give the probability of something, but rarely do they ever give their assumptions & calculations. So many times when I
look into the details, I find the assumptions to be 'cooked' to give the desired results....especially true with the anti-evolution crowd.

 

[evolved yet?]

People always give the probability of something, but rarely do they ever give their assumptions & calculations. So many times when I
look into the details, I find the assumptions to be 'cooked' to give the desired results....especially true with the anti-evolution crowd.

This is about the arrangement of genes being in the exact same order within many species across all three domains (eukaryotes, monera, and archaea). It is done by evolutionary biologist Douglas Theobald, famous for doing many articles on T.origins like "29+ evidences for macroevolution" (in other words I trust my source), also to anyone interested AiG has put up a rebuttal where they proposed it was all common design by a very very unimaginative god.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you have any info on their assumptions & calculation? Quite often, assumptions fail to include alternative mechanisms
to arrive at a physical result, so their numerical conclusion could be orders of magnitude off. I'm not saying that their work
is bogus, but I've found that skepticism of bioscience probability claims is prudent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Quite often, assumptions fail to include alternative mechanisms
to arrive at a physical result, so their numerical conclusion could be orders of magnitude off. I'm not saying that their work
is bogus, but I've found that skepticism of bioscience probability claims is prudent.

I agree. There is a difference between calculating the probabilities and finding actual evidence. Especially considering Creationism, which we know could not have happened in a Biblical account, has a 1 in 10^6,000 of happening. IMO it seems to be just beating a dead horse to even take the effort to even think about it. It's also acknowledging that Biblical Creationism might have happened.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's also acknowledging that Biblical Creationism might have happened.

I can't prove it didn't happen, so perhaps it did...& perhaps invisible pink unicorn landlords are flying out of a wormhole in Obama's butt too.
I wonder what the probability of that is? I can't even imagine how to go about calculating it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can't prove it didn't happen, so perhaps it did...& perhaps invisible pink unicorn landlords are flying out of a wormhole in Obama's butt too.

That we know humans alone have been around for longer than 10,000 years completely debunks Creationism.

 

[Gloone]

That we know humans alone have been around for longer than 10,000 years completely debunks Creationism.

Where in the bible does it make that claim?

 

[PolyHedral]

Add up the lifespans of Jesus ancestry. It doesn't add up to 100,000 years, let alone the millions it would have to for Creationism to match evidence.

 

[Gloone]

Add up the lifespans of Jesus ancestry. It doesn't add up to 100,000 years, let alone the millions it would have to for Creationism to match evidence.

To biblical scholars and others Adam doesn't just represent a single person he represents mankind and all of humanity, while Eve is a woman and also represent women, which is mans spouse, friend, companion, w/e. That right there tells me this random number generator of possibilities or assumptions of all life coming from "a single cell" doesn't mean much of anything. It doesn't explain why or how male and female came about, and it surely doesn't have an accurate understanding of the bible.

 

[painted wolf]

To biblical scholars and others Adam doesn't just represent a single person he represents mankind and all of humanity, while Eve is a woman and also represent women, which is mans spouse, friend, companion, w/e. That right there tells me this random number generator of possibilities or assumptions of all life coming from "a single cell" doesn't mean much of anything.

Unless those biblical scholars are from any of the major creationist organizations, or their followers. Then Adam is a single individual as is Eve.

It doesn't explain why or how male and female came about, and it surely doesn't have an accurate understanding of the bible.

It doesn't have to, that isn't the subject of the paper. Other papers/experiments cover that subject.
For example: Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review)

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

To biblical scholars and others Adam doesn't just represent a single person he represents mankind and all of humanity...

A race cannot have children.

 

[RedOne77]

A race cannot have children.

You need to stop thinking so literally.

 

[Skwim]

You need to stop thinking so literally.

Yeah, what da ya think you are, a fundie fer crying out loud? :149:

 

[evolved yet?]

It's also acknowledging that Biblical Creationism might have happened.

Yes but it shows that it is a statistical impossibility, it is about as likely as creationist abiogenesis calculations.

 

[RomCat]

Here is what another study said.
The human race descended from ONE FEMALE.
I contend that female is EVE.

 

[painted wolf]

Then you contend that Eve came before Adam?

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

Addendum: Then you contend that Eve came 60,000 years before Adam?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To biblical scholars and others Adam doesn't just represent a single person he represents mankind and all of humanity, while Eve is a woman and also represent women, which is mans spouse, friend, companion, w/e. That right there tells me this random number generator of possibilities or assumptions of all life coming from "a single cell" doesn't mean much of anything. It doesn't explain why or how male and female came about, and it surely doesn't have an accurate understanding of the bible.

I can point out church after church that takes a literal view point of the Bible, and to the God created Adam and Eve first, and we are all ultimately descendants of them.

Yes but it shows that it is a statistical impossibility, it is about as likely as creationist abiogenesis calculations.

I very low number, but even if you added a few more zeros it wouldn't make it an impossibility, just a less probably way of explaining how it happened.
And I just don't like basing assumptions on statistic. Many things are statistically rare, but they happen anyways.

 

[Gloone]

Since when did scientist think it was suitable to conduct all of their experiments with their own misunderstandings of the bible? Sounds like something Stephen Hawking would do, it is easy for other people to make themselves sound good when they compare their research with their own broken down ideology of something they don’t have the slightest understanding about. If that is how science gets all of its credibility with evolution, then I would say science is definitely not what it used to be.

Also it mentioned this in the Article:
“But it's highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences, according to the new study, to be published tomorrow in the journal [FONT=&quot]Nature.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- This 23 protein model has been around for a while now, it is nothing new. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Then is says this later in the Article:[/FONT]
"Evolution," he said, "should not be given any special status."

Then painted wolf posts this garbage about reproduction and the first sentence in the article says; “Darwinian theory has yet to explain adequately the fact of sex.”

So do you people read any of these sources or just rant on about nothing.