Yes, it’s irrelevant and your 2 billion claim was wrong.
I didn't assert it was 2 billion. I said LUCA
could have been 2 billion. I was just making the point that LUCA
need not be the first living thing.
You didn’t get it. You just demonstrated my point. Everything you said is an unevidenced speculation. Even your irrelevant speculation is logically flawed.
If LUCA came from first life A, then all life came from A. if this is the case, then what is the reason why A cannot be called the last common ancestor?
It's explained in the very quote you are replying to.
The "L" in LUCA stands for LAST.
In my hypothetical example, A3 would be the LAST common ancestor.
Here is the definition of LUCA:
The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth.
Note it says "..of all CURRENT life on earth".
This does not include all species that went extinct.
In my hypothetical, the branches A1 and A2 have gone extinct. They are dead-ends.
You don’t get it. The point is that life was never explained, neither by the ToE nor by Abiogenesis.
You are just stating the obvious.
Yes, we've established already that the origins of life hasn't been solved.
I didn't require you to inform me of that.
It's pretty common knowledge.
Again, the ultimate goal is to explain life not merely the diversity of life. Life was never explained.
You keep repeating this as if you are somehow scoring points by doing so.
Just FYI: you aren't.
We all know that the origins of life remains largely an open question.
With respect to evolution, it’s a false speculation/misinterpretation of the observed directed adaptation. Adaptation is never a random process; it’s always a function of directed mutations. See # 2330 and #1245.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 117 | Religious Forums
You keep asserting this. The evidence says otherwise.
Not true, many blind followers of evolution don’t understand the fact that evolution doesn’t explain life and that life was never explained. Many are not even aware of the specific details of the ToE or Abiogenesis
In my experience, this is only true for people who have no clue about the theory.
Anyone with a minimum of education in biological evolution knows better.
In any case, I don't see the point about trying to argue against an established scientific theory by pointing at people who are ignorant of what it says.
Life does exist but neither Abiogenesis explain it, nor it randomly evolves, life adapts because of directed mutations.
And again with the bare assertions that fly in the face of evidence.
Yes, origins of life are out of scope of evolution theory. My point again is the false notion that life was explained through the ToE or Abiogenesis. The problem of life was never resolved.
Then perhaps you should point that out to those who are ignorant of the science and believe such.
You may start with just about every creationist.
I’m complaining about the false notion that we have the answer. We simply don’t.
Nobody with a minimum of education in biology says otherwise.
The central assumptions of the modern synthesis are false. See #781.
Life doesn’t evolve, life adapts.
Adaption = evolution.
Absolutely false. mutations are never random.
More bare assertions.
There is no evidence that advantageous mutations emerge accidentally among endless other non-advantageous mutations that gets eliminated by selection. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.
Every newborn has mutations.
Most are neutral (ie: don't have any effect on fitness)
Some are harmful (ie: have negative effect on fitness)
Some are beneficial (ie: have positive effect on fitness)
The totality of these are statistically consistent with being random with respect to fitness.
Now it's your turn. Demonstrate that mutations are directed.
If true, you should have no problem showing a clear statistical signal that mutations always promote increased fitness.
I already know you won't be able to though.
