All life evolved from single cell, study finds

[PolyHedral]

Since when did scientist think it was suitable to conduct all of their experiments with their own misunderstandings of the bible?

The vast majority of science has nothing to do with the Bible, and a large proportion of scientists are actually religious.

And I did read the source, which goes on to say...

A review of the literature shows that the predictions of parasite coevolution fit well with the known ecology of sex. Moreover, parasite coevolution is superior to previous models of the evolution of sex by supporting the stability of sex under the following challenging conditions...

 

[Gloone]

The vast majority of science has nothing to do with the Bible, and a large proportion of scientists are actually religious.

And I did read the source, which goes on to say...

What would a parasite need to grow wings like a bird for to evolve? Did it feel threatened by something, did this thing have a brain, did it have some type of built in artificial intelligence?

 

[painted wolf]

What would a parasite need to grow wings like a bird for to evolve? Did it feel threatened by something, did this thing have a brain, did it have some type of built in artificial intelligence?

What? :areyoucra
What does the evolution of sex have to do with winged parasites?

wa:do

 

[Gloone]

What? :areyoucra
What does the evolution of sex have to do with winged parasites?

wa:do

Seriously, idk tell me what this thread has to do with anything. You seem to be the expert.

 

[painted wolf]

Seriously, idk tell me what this thread has to do with anything. You seem to be the expert.

Seems to me a refutation of the creationist tactic of appealing to "odds".
The only issue is if you find such statistical tactics useful or meaningful.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

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?

damn it! i had no idea we had found and modeled all forms of life!
i was so sure that there were multiple sources of original cells

 

[Luminous]

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.

so you are changing your religion, again.
cute

 

[David M]

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.

As its science I would say that all the information would referenced in the published article.

Theobald DL. "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry." Nature (2010) 2010 May 13;465(7295):219-22

 

[Alceste]

Since when did scientist think it was suitable to conduct all of their experiments with their own misunderstandings of the bible?

When scientists are doing a job of science, the Bible doesn't enter into it at all. Neither does the Hobbit, the annotated works of Shakespeare, the Oddysey and the Iliad or any other work of literature. They just look at what is occurring and use reason and empirical investigation to figure out what is causing it to happen.

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.”

It's an abstract, not an article - it summarizes the content of a study that may provide a piece of the puzzle of sexual reproduction. One sentence of an abstract is not representative of the contents of a study.

Scientists could just declare, as creationists do, that gender just poofed into existence from nothing. Or they could declare that it "evolved" from a mouldy slice of baguette left half in shade, half in sun. They could, like religious folks, just make up any nonsense at all and declare it to be the absolute infallible truth. But they don't. They look at gender and go "Hmmm. Curious. I wonder what caused that to occur." Then they set about trying to discover the truth. Until they discover the truth, they are perfectly happy to say "Well, I just don't know".

In that, they are the opposite of creationists.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

You should learn to read more than the first sentence.

"A review of the literature shows that the predictions of parasite coevolution fit well with the known ecology of sex. Moreover, parasite coevolution is superior to previous models of the evolution of sex by supporting the stability of sex under the following challenging conditions: very low fecundity, realistic patterns of genotype fitness and changing environment, and frequent mutation to parthenogenesis, even while sex pays the full 2-fold cost."

Quote mining only makes you look dishonest.

wa:do

btw... scientists don't do any experiments with the bible in mind. The only people who insist that their misunderstanding of the Bible should be law are creationists.