Common Ancestor

Is the fact that all living things have DNA proof of a common ancestor, or something else?

[Denise]

I thought some have RNA?

I don't think that all things having DNA would be proof of a common ancestor. I think it's possible that all things evolved from the first life, but I also think it's possible that a few different kinds of life came about at the same time.

[RichardR]

You are talking about mitochondrial DNA.

From memory, all humans who migrated from Africa carry some mitochondrial DNA from the same woman. That does not mean everyone directly descended from her. It means that over a few generations, all descendants of the humans in this one group interbred with the descendants of this one woman. So it is not directly analogous to the biblical Eve (despite the “Nova” TV program of that name), where everyone was supposed to have been descended directly from two people. Also, mitochondrial DNA is only passed on through the female, and so there is no equivalent “Adam”.

In addition, the mitochondrial DNA that is present in all humans descended from those early people who left Africa, is not present in the majority of people of African descent. That is because different groups of the same species of humans were living in Africa, but were not related to “Eve”. These groups did not leave Africa.

Mitochondrial DNA is a powerful tool to trace human genealogies over hundreds of thousands of years. As usual, the woo woos are misappropriating this information for their own ends.

That’s how I remember it, anyway. Do a google on mitochondrial DNA and see what you get.

[chance]

Not 100% proof, but a reasonable assumption.

[Denise]

I thought we were talking about common ancestor for all life on earth, not a common ancestor for humans alone.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Whodini
Is the fact that all living things have DNA proof of a common ancestor, or something else? The fact that the DNA molecule in every cell of all living things is made up of the same four kind of nucleotides is an indicative of a common evolutionary heritage. It also suggests that life began on Earth as a unique circumstance.

Even a simple organism as a bacteria share many genetic instructions with us, for example how to convert food into energy. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "they and we and all creatures in between possess many similar genetic instructions, our separate gene libraries have many pages in common"

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini
Is the fact that all living things have DNA proof of a common ancestor, or something else?

It is one of 29 Evidences (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

So I wonder, what does this common ancestor look like?

What did it eat?

Where did it live?

How did it get here?

Anyone know?


----
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "they and we and all creatures in between possess many similar genetic instructions, our separate gene libraries have many pages in common"
----


Sagan knew about Jupiter, etc., but he wasn't a biologist in any way whatsoever.

Where are the fossils of this common ancestor?

[Walter Wayne]

The first life forms are hypothesized to be a bunch of RNA or DNA in a semi-permeable membrane IIRC. Thus, no fossils. There are other here though he will no more about it I'm guessing.

Walt

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by Whodini
Sagan knew about Jupiter, etc., but he wasn't a biologist in any way whatsoever. Nope!,.. he had a lot of formal education in biology, in fact he is quoted as being the most knowledgeable astronomer in the field of biology, and exobiology in particular. Let's remember his biology oriented books "The Dragons Of Eden" and "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"

Sure he had education in aspects of biology, but had no degrees in biology, and wasn't a biologist.

He was a physicist / astronomer.

[fishbob]

The first life forms are hypothesized to be a bunch of RNA or DNA in a semi-permeable membrane IIRC. Thus, no fossils. There are other here though he will no more about it I'm guessing. Also, very small. Microscopic organisms with no hard parts are not good candidates for fossilization. Although Precambrian fossils interpreted to be some type of algal mats have been found - clumps of microfossils and mud.

Would have lived in the water, may have photosynthesized food.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini
Where are the fossils of this common ancestor?

You might note that you're a bit confused about the fossil record and your clear reference to a single "missing link."

If you're ready to jump right in. Try this essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology

Or you could just start at the beginning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology
There are 29 Evidences for common descent in above essay.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini
Sagan knew about Jupiter, etc., but he wasn't a biologist in any way whatsoever.


The author of this essay containing 29 evidences for common descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) is a biologist.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

The author of this essay containing 29 evidences for common descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) is a biologist.


What does this have to do with Sagan? LOL.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini



What does this have to do with Sagan? LOL.

Well, you set up the argument from authority... :rolleyes:

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Well, you set up the argument from authority... :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Hey Bill,

If you're going to quote me in your sig, at least have the decency to also quote that which I was responding to.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini



What does this have to do with Sagan? LOL.

I don't know, it was your non sequitor.

Now do you wish to address the 29 arguments made by the biologist regarding the facts supporting common descent or do you wish to hand wave further?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hey Bill,

If you're going to quote me in your sig, at least have the decency to also quote that which I was responding to.

Doesn't any statement stand alone? Othewise how would creationists ever be able to cull the volumes of out of context quotes they mine to try and undermine EVILution?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hey Bill,

If you're going to quote me in your sig, at least have the decency to also quote that which I was responding to.

Sure. How about I go back through the database, find all the times that was the extent of your brilliant repartee, and list them all? :rolleyes:

Cheers,

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Whodini
So I wonder, what does this common ancestor look like?



http://martin.parasitology.mcgill.ca/images/ehistcth.gif

[Walter Wayne]

Doesn't look right to me Diogenes. It looks like it has a nucleus to me. :p

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Doesn't look right to me Diogenes. It looks like it has a nucleus to me. :p

It is common, though..:)

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Now do you wish to address the 29 arguments made by the biologist regarding the facts supporting common descent or do you wish to hand wave further?


What are you talking about?

I never argued against your holy contents of TalkOrigins.

And where is my 'hand wave'? I never presented any arguments.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini



So, in other words, you don't know, and cannot provide anything remotely approaching specificity.

Such is your "science".

ok Whodini, how are we to know?

[fishbob]

So, in other words, you don't know, and cannot provide anything remotely approaching specificity. Absolutely 100% correct. So do we keep looking or do we give up and speculate?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Whodini
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes

stuff here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in other words, you don't know, and cannot provide anything remotely approaching specificity.

Such is your "science".

Where did this come from?:confused:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Added:

O.K., I get it now.. " stuff here " was in place of the image I linked..


You asked: "what does this common ancestor look like?"

I posted an image. Can you prove the image I posted is not our common ancestor?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini



What are you talking about?

I never argued against your holy contents of TalkOrigins.

And where is my 'hand wave'? I never presented any arguments.

Right, because you can't...

ATTN: HAND WAVE AHEAD:


Originally posted by Whodini
Where are the fossils of this common ancestor?

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
If you're ready to jump right in. Try this essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/com...html#chronology

Originally posted by Whodini
What does this have to do with Sagan? LOL.


Now, are you going to address the content of the essay or are you going to hand wave more? I figure the latter..

[chance]

Whodini So, in other words, you don't know, and cannot provide anything remotely approaching specificity.

Such is your "science".

And sciences claims to be no more. While evidence is strong for evolution, it is not for abiogenesis as the environment and mechanisms are not known, therefore a hypothesis has to suffice

Originally posted by fishbob
Absolutely 100% correct. So do we keep looking or do we give up and speculate?


Do you not understand that by this point you have speculated too much already?

----
You asked: "what does this common ancestor look like?"

I posted an image. Can you prove the image I posted is not our common ancestor? [/B][/QUOTE]
----


It is up to you to prove that it is, not up to me to disprove your dream.

In fact, that picture is obviously NOT, because it is a picture of a recent thing, and not a record of the exact thing that was in existence millions of years ago.

----
Originally posted by Whodini
Where are the fossils of this common ancestor?

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
If you're ready to jump right in. Try this essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/com...html#chronology

Originally posted by Whodini
What does this have to do with Sagan? LOL.

Now, are you going to address the content of the essay or are you going to hand wave more? I figure the latter..
----


You left out one thing, and that is the postings I had with Patricio. He brought up Sagan, I responded that Sagan was NOT a biologist in any sense of the word, then you responded with your sacred TalkOrigins text, then I asked what that had to do with Sagan, which is what Patricio and I were talking about.

It seems like you overlook things at will.

----
And sciences claims to be no more.
----


Science doesn't claim anything because science is not a person. However, some scientists (and scientistic scientist admirers) certainly do. Most all of them don't say it in laymen's terms though.

[Walter Wayne]

Which scientists?

Do you honestly believe that this is a view held by even 1% of scientists?

Walt

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Which scientists?
Do you honestly believe that this is a view held by even 1% of scientists?
Walt


It doesn't matter how many- just the fact that many do.

I said some scientists, and some scientistic scientists worshippers have that belief.

[Skeptoid]

Whodini,

Arguing the bona fides of Carl Sagan isn't going to get your question answered, is it? Then again, I don't think it's answers you want, you just enjoy being obtuse, right?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini
Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Now, are you going to address the content of the essay or are you going to hand wave more? I figure the latter..
----


You left out one thing, and that is the postings I had with Patricio. He brought up Sagan, I responded that Sagan was NOT a biologist in any sense of the word, then you responded with your sacred TalkOrigins text, then I asked what that had to do with Sagan, which is what Patricio and I were talking about.

It seems like you overlook things at will.

Yep, I called it. More hand waving.

Are you going to address the essay and it's content or not?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Whodini



It doesn't matter how many- just the fact that many do.

I said some scientists, and some scientistic scientists worshippers have that belief. Whodini

Then all you need for a proof that some scientists believe this is a couple of examples. I don't mean to harp on this, but I don't know of any scientist who would claim we know the answer to this question "with specifity".

Walt

[Diogenes]

Does anyone remember a thread with hundreds of posts, where the assertion was that ' The Scientific Method ' was not adequate to explore some perceived elusive phenomena?


The thread starter, never managed to produce a substative example, demonstrating why this might be so...

Deja Vu all over again?

[BillHoyt]

Whodini,

Has it, at long last, not gotten through to you that your posts are riddled with fallacies? The key one here is the argument from ignorance. Nothing, sir, logically follows this phrase: "scientists don't know, therefore..."

Do you understand that?

Cheers,

[Kullervo]

No one's mentioned The Lives of a Cell by Lewis Thomas? Is this book still reasonably accurate/valid?

[LeFevre]

Whodini (I think) really likes to be a contrarian. That is good and is vital for skepticism, but when (again to me) it seems he is doing it just to be contrarian it gets a little annoying. I like discussing things with people, I like hearing their side.

It aint too fun, at least for me, to discuss something with someone who will say no to every yes you say just to say no, just to be contrary. I think like most everything, in moderation someone being contrary can be fun to discuss things with. When it becomes an almost certain that someone will counter everything you say just so it is countered (got to challenge everything now), it isnt discussing. I hope most folks do that to their own position (look at other explanations I mean).

eh, Whodini is cool. I would like for the dude to be himself more, to discuss positions that he holds instead of most always posting no to people's yes or yes to people's no. Unless that is Whodini being Whodini:eek: .

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by LeFevre
Whodini (I think) really likes to be a contrarian. That is good and is vital for skepticism, but when (again to me) it seems he is doing it just to be contrarian it gets a little annoying. I like discussing things with people, I like hearing their side.

It aint too fun, at least for me, to discuss something with someone who will say no to every yes you say just to say no, just to be contrary. I think like most everything, in moderation someone being contrary can be fun to discuss things with. When it becomes an almost certain that someone will counter everything you say just so it is countered (got to challenge everything now), it isnt discussing. I hope most folks do that to their own position (look at other explanations I mean).

eh, Whodini is cool. I would like for the dude to be himself more, to discuss positions that he holds instead of most always posting no to people's yes or yes to people's no. Unless that is Whodini being Whodini:eek: .

I agree. I have resisted the tempation of calling Whodini a troll as it's clear he's not. He's just being contrarian. And like you said, that's all well and good, but when you do it ad nauseum, it gets old, unproductive and needlessly infuriating.

Originally posted by Skeptoid
Whodini,

Arguing the bona fides of Carl Sagan isn't going to get your question answered, is it? Then again, I don't think it's answers you want, you just enjoy being obtuse, right?


Illucid.

Never once did I dispute the contents of your sacred text TalkOrigins, so quit with the strawman.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Yep, I called it. More hand waving.

Are you going to address the essay and it's content or not?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Ditto.

LeFevre,

I'd also like to read peoples thoughts on things.

If I was interested in reading the TalkOrigins bible, I'd have gone there. But it seems all people can do it post links to it and say "There, your proof lies there."

Pathetic.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
LeFevre,

I'd also like to read peoples thoughts on things.

If I was interested in reading the TalkOrigins bible, I'd have gone there. But it seems all people can do it post links to it and say "There, your proof lies there."

Pathetic.

Pathetic is right. That's exactly how I'd describe someone who is pointed to a good source of information, clearly refuses to read it and stomps up and down screaming that nobody is proffering the evidence. Compound this with the stated preference to "read peoples thoughts on things," and you've got one whoppingly irrational nitwit on your hands.

Yes, that's right, whodini, that's exactly how evidence is gathered and truth about nature determined: collect up people's thoughts on the issue. Be sure to weigh each respondent, by the way. You know, a 300 pound guy's opinion should matter more than a 98 pound weakling, don't you think? Now that's epistemology with a capital PIS!

Cheers,

BillPout,

I've read your sacred text TalkOrigins, and I don't disagree with much. That isn't the issue.

The issue is people not even discussing things, but rather saying 'the proof lies here', and then posting a link to TalkOrigins.


----
Yes, that's right, whodini, that's exactly how evidence is gathered and truth about nature determined: collect up people's thoughts on the issue.
----


Illucid.

Here we have someone who thinks he knows the "truth about nature". See? The scientistic DO think science reveals the truth.

Cheers,

Whodini

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
BillPout,

I've read your sacred text TalkOrigins, and I don't disagree with much. That isn't the issue.

The issue is people not even discussing things, but rather saying 'the proof lies here', and then posting a link to TalkOrigins.


----
Yes, that's right, whodini, that's exactly how evidence is gathered and truth about nature determined: collect up people's thoughts on the issue.
----


Illucid.

Here we have someone who thinks he knows the "truth about nature". See? The scientistic DO think science reveals the truth.

Cheers,

Whodini

No, who, the issue here is you ignored all the intelligent responses given to you and zeroed in on this lame complaint that people pointed you to a good source.

Denise pointed out that some organisms do NOT use DNA. You ignored it.

RichardR pointed out the role of mitochondrial DNA analysis in determining common human ancestors. You ignored it.

chance pointed out that you misframed the question and suggested that it was not "proof," but a reasonable assumption. You ignored it.

Denise then pointed out RichardR misconstrued the question. You didn't respond in any way.

Patricio quoted Sagan, whereupon you claimed Sagan was a false authority.

Unrepentant then pointed you to a biologist who wrote "29 evidences," whereupon you started this crap about TalkOrigins.

You're full of crap. You have no interest in learning, but prefer to dismiss all evidence given you and to then declare TalkOrigins as a "Bible" and me as "scientistic." Play postmodernism in another concert hall, sir, this audience is interested in truth about nature. Science has epistemological privilege in this realm, as I have pointed out endlessly in the past. The truth about nature that it finds is provisional, as I have pointed out endlessly in the past.

But you choose to ignore it.

Cheers,

[Skeptoid]

Originally posted by Whodini


Illucid.
Care to point me to a dictionary that defines those 7 letters in that particular arrangement?

----
Denise pointed out that some organisms do NOT use DNA. You ignored it.
----


She said nothing of the sort. She said that something like that may be possible. Don't you even read what they say? Or do you just glance at their avatar and if it is one you recognize, you assume that they are correct?


----
RichardR pointed out the role of mitochondrial DNA analysis in determining common human ancestors. You ignored it.
----


Who said I ignored it? I was talking about DNA. You assume I wasn't talking about mitochondrial DNA for some reason...Did you know that mitochondrial DNA is DNA? And how do you know I didn't read what he wrote and search for articles? Fact: You don't.


----
chance pointed out that you misframed the question and suggested that it was not "proof," but a reasonable assumption. You ignored it.
----


So now I need to respond to everybody or I am ignoring them? Good god. I guess I've ignored millions of people in my life then.


----
Patricio quoted Sagan, whereupon you claimed Sagan was a false authority.
----


A good scientist, but alas, Sagan was NOT a biologist. He was a physicist and astronomer. I'm willing to be proven wrong though.


----
Unrepentant then pointed you to a biologist who wrote "29 evidences," whereupon you started this crap about TalkOrigins.
----


And I've read that stuff, and I understand and agree with the majority of it. How is that starting crap? When people post TalkOrigins links in response to every query, that is a sign that they have no clue how to speak on their own.
(even though the site is good)


----
You're full of crap.
----


The rational behavior we've come to know and love. ;)


----
You have no interest in learning,
----


I must not, because I am still talking to you.


----
this audience is interested in truth about nature.
----


And that is scientistic! You might as well type truth with a capital T, since that is the way you think about it and how you are referring to it.

[chance]

whodini Until a better theory of evolution is put forward, the existing theory predicts that, ‘working backwards through time’ all life forms converge to common ancestors. And with no evidence to the contrary then it’s reasonable to assume all current life originated from a single common ancestor.

However I see no logical reason to rule out life identical to ours originating more than once. However it must be realised that two separate lines of evolution will eventually compete the survivors are determined by the fittest and sometimes the first to evolve.

----
And with no evidence to the contrary then it’s reasonable to assume all current life originated from a single common ancestor.
----


Do we know what this common ancestor looked like, what it ate, where it lived, where it came from, why it changed, and why there was only a 'single' common ancestor.

I know I know, TalkOrigins, amen.

[Fade]

Do we know what this common ancestor looked like, what it ate, where it lived, where it came from, why it changed, and why there was only a 'single' common ancestor.

Well. Laboratory experiments can produce organic particles from inorganic materials.

If you take conditions similar to earth a long, long time ago (Ammonia, Carbon, lots of heat, various heavy elements) and you throw a bunch of electricity at it, you get simple proteins.

So, eventually one of these proteins started down the road of self replication.

The current thought is that Blue Green Algae (the simplest form of life, basically, today) is either THE first living thing, or close to it. The evidence of this isn't so concrete that there is no doubt. But, the model works well enough for current scientific purposes, and the search continues, and probably will continue forever.

The problem with discussing abiogenesis is the same as the problem with discussing evolution. Many people seek to hold science to a different set of standards than they hold their own beliefs too. When discussing evolution, you have to make a few basic assumptions. It doesn't matter that the literally millions of pieces of evidence all fall perfectly within these assumptions, the fact that we have to make them at all is attack fodder for some ignorant minds.

Varying abiogenesis hypotheses exist. Your contrary nature (You ARE a contrarian, no amount of screeching will convince me that the last several months of seeing you contradict everyone and everything regardless of the frailty of your own position was all serious) will simply cling onto the fact that some of us (me included, sometimes) don't always speak as clearly as we possibly can.

You raise objections for no good reason. You willfully misunderstand people to further your contrary agenda. You aren't a troll, but you like arguing foolish things.

----
Well. Laboratory experiments can produce organic particles from inorganic materials.
----


Can you please cite the journal specifics?

Although, particles are quite different than life.

Also, where did those inorganic particles come from? Did they evolve from a common ancestor? ;)


----
If you take conditions similar to earth a long, long time ago (Ammonia, Carbon, lots of heat, various heavy elements) and you throw a bunch of electricity at it, you get simple proteins.
----


No one knows exactly the conditions a long long time ago. They are based on assumptions and experiments.


----
You ARE a contrarian,
----


I disagree.


----
You raise objections for no good reason. You willfully misunderstand people to further your contrary agenda. You aren't a troll, but you like arguing foolish things.
----


I place my right hand on a printed copy of TalkOrigins and swear I will try harder.

[fishbob]

Why do the explanations of life's origins keep changing from one decade to the next; from pools of organic soup to undersea thermal vents to seeding by comets? Your term "explanations" are hypotheses, not anwers. 30 years ago we didn't know about hydrothermal vents. Somewhere around then the first organic soup experiments were done. Seeding by comets may be a little more difficult to test, but somebody may eventually come up with an idea. Hey - the hypotheses keep changing because we keep getting new information and this leads to new ideas. It will always be this way. When we get on the right track, the changes will probably become smaller in magnitude. We will never be able to know the absolute TRUTH - and that is fine with me. Science in action - the fun is in the looking.

Congrats FishyBobby!

You are the first one to take the worm.

I predicted one whole day, but you exceeded my expectations!

:)

You even beat Diogenes and Dark Cobra, which is truly astonishing. I bow to you.


----
Seeding by comets may be a little more difficult to test,
----


Yes, but see, they can publish a lot of things with a hypothesis like that! And if it is published, it must be realistic and true.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Whodini
Yes, but see, they can publish a lot of things with a hypothesis like that! And if it is published, it must be realistic and true. According to whom. Again, I think you are putting words in other peoples mouths.

Walt

[fishbob]

Has Whodini evolved into the Franko niche?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini
Congrats FishyBobby!

You are the first one to take the worm.

I predicted one whole day, but you exceeded my expectations!

:)

You even beat Diogenes and Dark Cobra, which is truly astonishing. I bow to you.


----
Seeding by comets may be a little more difficult to test,
----


Yes, but see, they can publish a lot of things with a hypothesis like that! And if it is published, it must be realistic and true.

WTF is up with you dude? Were you playing some game? What worm are you talking about? You know the method of science dont you Whodini? So what are you asking about?



We dont KNOW what our (if there is one) common ancestor looked like. But we can guess from current knowledge (that could change with future discoveries or breakthroughs, and even that could later be show to be not fully correct) what it may have looked like.

We dont KNOW exactly what it ate, but we can guess from current knowledge (that could change with future discoveries or breakthroughs, and even that could later be shown to be not fully correct) what it may have eaten or done to get "food" or "energy".

We dont KNOW where it lived exactly. We could guess from current knowledge (heat vents, alien spew, Jesus' wad) where it may have lived (that could change with future discoveries or breakthroughs, and even that could later be shown to be not fully correct).


We dont KNOW how it exactly got here, but we can guess from current knowledge (that could change with future discoveries or breakthroughs, and even that could later be shown to not be fully correct.) Protiens could congeal from the will of Ra, or something similar to how our solar system formed (well, how those ignorant sciencey folks believe on nothing at all but faith) it could have been seeded, but then we need to search for how that came to be.


As with all our knowledge, no one KNOWS in the way I think you are asking (doing that just to be contrary? ;) ). But with current probable and subject to reformed "knowledge" (unless you want to dance nude chanting to ooowawa, maybe the he/she could inform you with 100% CORRECT knowledge) we can make some decent guesses.

But I think you already "knew" all of this Whodini. You are a smart dude, so why play these annoying games, why be so contrarian most ALL the time dude?


:) Why come into PalTalk under different names and not talk or write to us? You MAY (it is probable after all, maybe we should ask ooowawa) be hurting my widdle feelings.

Why do you most always act contrary to folks on this board? Where did you come from? What do you look like? What do you eat? Where do you live? How did Lord Whodini get here?


Anyone know?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Denise pointed out that some organisms do NOT use DNA. You ignored it.
----
She said nothing of the sort. She said that something like that may be possible. Don't you even read what they say? Or do you just glance at their avatar and if it is one you recognize, you assume that they are correct?

She said "I thought some had RNA." Actually, all have RNA. What she meant was some have RNA instead of DNA, which is correct. Except to you postmodernists.

----
RichardR pointed out the role of mitochondrial DNA analysis in determining common human ancestors. You ignored it.
----

Who said I ignored it? I was talking about DNA. You assume I wasn't talking about mitochondrial DNA for some reason...Did you know that mitochondrial DNA is DNA? And how do you know I didn't read what he wrote and search for articles? Fact: You don't.
YOU are the one who set up the universal complaint about TalkOrigins. YOU said ALL we can do is quote from the "TalkOrigins bible". YOU read what YOU wrote. I am pointing out to you that people have said MANY things in response. YOU waited for TalkOrigins to launch into your "science = religion" bull.


----
chance pointed out that you misframed the question and suggested that it was not "proof," but a reasonable assumption. You ignored it.
----
So now I need to respond to everybody or I am ignoring them? Good god. I guess I've ignored millions of people in my life then.
See above.

----
Patricio quoted Sagan, whereupon you claimed Sagan was a false authority.
----

A good scientist, but alas, Sagan was NOT a biologist. He was a physicist and astronomer. I'm willing to be proven wrong though.
Argument from authority. A fallacy that has already been pointed out to you.


----
Unrepentant then pointed you to a biologist who wrote "29 evidences," whereupon you started this crap about TalkOrigins.
----
And I've read that stuff, and I understand and agree with the majority of it. How is that starting crap? When people post TalkOrigins links in response to every query, that is a sign that they have no clue how to speak on their own.
(even though the site is good)
No, it is a sign that they tire of the barrage of ill-informed questions on the same topic. I keep a quiver of notes and previous posts on hand because woo-woos go for the same points over and over, and I tire of re-writing the same paragraphs and giving the same citations.

In your case, it gets worse, though. Who the h**l shoud bother discussing this with you, making the effort to educate you when you have made it abundantly clear you have problems understanding how science works, what it is and that it yields provisional truth? When you make clear you are heading for the argument from ignorance? And when you make it clear you think you have made a point when, in fact, you have strung together yet another amazing series of fallacies?


----
You're full of crap.
----
The rational behavior we've come to know and love. ;)
----
You have no interest in learning,
----
I must not, because I am still talking to you.
----
this audience is interested in truth about nature.
----
And that is scientistic! You might as well type truth with a capital T, since that is the way you think about it and how you are referring to it.
You continue to prove my comments correct, sir. It is not scientistic to assert that science yields truth about nature. Your error here is three-fold: a) misunderstanding the meaning of 'scientistic' (look it up), b) refusing to recognize that the scientific method yields provisional truths about nature and c) confusing what I said with your metaphysical bias that impells you to believe that science does not yield ultimate truths about nature.

Cheers,

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Whodini
BillPout,

[i]I've read your sacred text TalkOrigins, and I don't disagree with much. That isn't the issue.

Whodini

Liar.

You haven't read the essay I've been linking to. If you had you'd not be handwaving and racing down rabbit holes this entire thread.

So please, I'm asking nicely. Address the content of the essay.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

LeFevre,


----
WTF is up with you dude? Were you playing some game? What worm are you talking about?
----


My previous sig. file. I was curious as to how long it would take for someone to respond to it, given that I did not bring it up at all in a post.


----
We dont KNOW what our (if there is one) common ancestor looked like. But we can guess from current knowledge (that could change with future discoveries or breakthroughs, and even that could later be show to be not fully correct) what it may have looked like.
----


Right... and I am asking what did it look like, what did it eat, where did it live, how did it get here, etc.


----
(unless you want to dance nude chanting to ooowawa,
----


That is Ooowawah! Now bow down infidel! ;)


----
we can make some decent guesses.
----


And what are the decent guesses about what it looked like, what it ate, where it lived, and how it got here, etc. ?


----
Why come into PalTalk under different names and not talk or write to us?
----


I haven't been in the JREF room for a looooooooonng time.


----
Why do you most always act contrary to folks on this board?
----


The same reason, probably, most science/atheist/skeptic types conclude that one is an uneducated "woo-woo" if one believes in a religion (or religion related) topic.


----
Where did you come from? What do you look like? What do you eat? Where do you live? How did Lord Whodini get here?
----


My parents, but from Oregon. I am 5'10", brown hair, 180lbs (I exercised off 10 lbs, yeah!), and I like long walks on the beach. ;) I like eating sushi primarily.

I don't know who 'Lord Whodini' is.

----
Except to you postmodernists.
----


Lovely strawman. Can you point to where I said I was a postmodernist, or is that something else you assume from the "evidence" (ie. your beliefs)?


----
YOU are the one who set up the universal complaint about TalkOrigins. YOU said ALL we can do is quote from the "TalkOrigins bible".
----


I love it. The next post, right after yours, is UnrepentantSinner posting a link to TalkOrigins!


----
Argument from authority. A fallacy that has already been pointed out to you.
----


Huh? It is an argument from no authority. Sagan was not a biologist, he was a physicist and astronomer.

UnrepentantSinner,

----
Liar.
----


That is a pathetic tactic. I've read the entire TalkOrigins site. Yet you feel I'm lying? Uh, Ok...


----
So please, I'm asking nicely. Address the content of the essay.
(TalkOrigins bible link snipped)
----


And I ask you, where did I even dispute any of the contents of TalkOrigins? Please let me know if you can find where.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Except to you postmodernists.
----
Lovely strawman. Can you point to where I said I was a postmodernist, or is that something else you assume from the "evidence" (ie. your beliefs)?
The evidence is your posts, sir. BTW, declaring you a postmodernist may have been ad hom, but it has nothing to do with the strawman fallacy. You have a lot to learn about logic and debate.

----
YOU are the one who set up the universal complaint about TalkOrigins. YOU said ALL we can do is quote from the "TalkOrigins bible".
----


I love it. The next post, right after yours, is UnrepentantSinner posting a link to TalkOrigins!
Wow! Omigod! Really? And that fact that you have another post to add to the TalkOrigins column wipes out all the non-TalkOrigins posts to somehow support your universal assertion? You truly have no idea of how logic works.

----
Argument from authority. A fallacy that has already been pointed out to you.
----
Huh? It is an argument from no authority. Sagan was not a biologist, he was a physicist and astronomer.
There is no need for you to say "huh". We already know you're confused. You refuted Sagan on the basis of your claim that he is somehow unqualified. That is an argument from authority.

Cheers,

Hi Bill,


----
BTW, declaring you a postmodernist may have been ad hom, but it has nothing to do with the strawman fallacy. You have a lot to learn about logic and debate.
----


So you admit to using an ad hom? LOL. Seems like you have a lot to learn about logic and debate. We should sit in on the same class together. We could be study buddies.


----
You refuted Sagan on the basis of your claim that he is somehow unqualified. That is an argument from authority.
----


Oh, I'm sure he has a lot of very impressive qualifications in physics and astronomy, and had a lot of interests in other areas. He just didn't have any degrees in biology. (he may? have had some honarary ones). It is a matter of common sense. Sagan or not Sagan, I'd trust what a biologist says about biology rather than a physicist or astronomer says.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
So you admit to using an ad hom? LOL. Seems like you have a lot to learn about logic and debate. We should sit in on the same class together. We could be study buddies.
No, I said, may have been ad hom. I was being gracious in conceding any fallacy at all. I will flag such comments for you in the future. [gratuitous insult]We could never be study buddies. I doubt I'd be in a remedial class.[/gratuitous insult]


----
You refuted Sagan on the basis of your claim that he is somehow unqualified. That is an argument from authority.
----


Oh, I'm sure he has a lot of very impressive qualifications in physics and astronomy, and had a lot of interests in other areas. He just didn't have any degrees in biology. (he may? have had some honarary ones). It is a matter of common sense. Sagan or not Sagan, I'd trust what a biologist says about biology rather than a physicist or astronomer says.
Who, you just made my point. Again. The fallacies of argument from authority all revolve around mistakenly assuming that assertions are either true or false based on the qualifications of the person making them. Your last line is a flashing neon sign that says "this one doesn't understand critical thinking."

Cheers,

----
[gratuitous insult]We could never be study buddies. I doubt I'd be in a remedial class.[/gratuitous insult]
----


We'd probably be in the same class (such is the way with crowded schools), but we'd definitely ride different busses.


----
Your last line is a flashing neon sign that says "this one doesn't understand critical thinking."
----


A physicist/astronomer says something about DNA. A biologist says something about DNA. All things constant, you go with what the biologist says. This is critical thinking.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
A physicist/astronomer says something about DNA. A biologist says something about DNA. All things constant, you go with what the biologist says. This is critical thinking.

This is the Sagan quote: "they and we and all creatures in between possess many similar genetic instructions, our separate gene libraries have many pages in common"

There was no competing quote from a biologist at the time you decried Sagan as not being an authority.

Your description, therefore, is yet more shucking and jiving. Beyond the minor point that you didn't properly describe what you did, neither did you properly describe critical thinking. What you described is only a first-level filter when confronted with a) competing assertions, b) about which you don't know enough to distinguish fact from fiction. The role of critical thinking really comes into play with step 2, which is to investigate the topic on your own.

Now you were given this opportunity when the next post pointed you to TalkOrigins, wherein you were told you would find writing from a biologist. You would also find, much more importantly, citations in that writing, pointing you to primary sources. The concept of primary sources may be relevant here, to paraphrase Feynman.

Cheers,

----
There was no competing quote from a biologist at the time you decried Sagan as not being an authority.
----


I'm saying in general, not with that specific quote.


----
Your description, therefore, is yet more shucking and jiving.
----


What is "shucking and jiving"? (serious)


----
Now you were given this opportunity when the next post pointed you to TalkOrigins, wherein you were told you would find writing from a biologist. You would also find, much more importantly, citations in that writing, pointing you to primary sources. The concept of primary sources may be relevant here, to paraphrase Feynman.
----


Right... and I have said that I essentially don't disagree with the contents of TalkOrigins. ..So why (and where) do we disagree exactly??

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
There was no competing quote from a biologist at the time you decried Sagan as not being an authority.
----
I'm saying in general, not with that specific quote.
So, you dismissed the statement simply because he wasn't wearing the right (in your opinion) white coat. You still don't get it, do you?

Look, I am a bouncer at a local strip club. Does that change anything at all about what I have said? No. If it is an assertion of fact, it is either true or false. What I do for a living has no relevance.
What is "shucking and jiving"? (serious)
Dancing around the topic. Making noise and motion, but not getting to the answers.
Right... and I have said that I essentially don't disagree with the contents of TalkOrigins. ..So why (and where) do we disagree exactly??
Right.. and yet you dismissively describe it as "holy text", "sacred" and the "bible." But note I did not say you disagreed with it. I said you 1) decried the citation, 2) ignored all other posts attempting to answer your troll and 3) that TalkOrigins would have given you the opportunity to either corroborate or refute the Sagan quote.

Stop trolling. How many freakin' threads have you started lately with a two or three line question set out as bait?

Cheers,

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini


----
Why do you most always act contrary to folks on this board?
----


The same reason, probably, most science/atheist/skeptic types conclude that one is an uneducated "woo-woo" if one believes in a religion (or religion related) topic.




and what reason, probably, is that? So you have reasons to post here other than discussing with people? What are some of those reasons? Are you trying to piss off "atheists"? Another type of group? People in general?

LeFevre,


----
and what reason, probably, is that? So you have reasons to post here other than discussing with people? What are some of those reasons? Are you trying to piss off "atheists"? Another type of group? People in general?
----


I'm not trying to piss off anybody. If they can't take the heat...then get out of the kitchen! :)

I might say some things that they violently disagree with (and vice-versa with me being the disagree-er) - such is the nature of highly opinated discussions like philosophy and religion and the nature of The Truth (tm).

There are many people who start threads like: "Christians are Dumbass Gamblers". Why don't people ask them what their motives are?

BillHoyt,


----
Look, I am a bouncer at a local strip club. Does that change anything at all about what I have said?
----


No, but you give me way more ammo. ;)

Also, I think I finally know what that eyeball in your telescope is looking at.

Was martial arts a requirement for the job? Do you believe in ch'i? ;)


----
No. If it is an assertion of fact, it is either true or false. What I do for a living has no relevance.
----


That is true, I don't disagree with that. I'm saying that 'all other things constant...' the biologist knows more about biology than Sagan. I don't think we reallyare in disagreement.


----
Stop trolling. How many freakin' threads have you started lately with a two or three line question set out as bait?
----


Fine. Next time I'll type 4 lines. I personally don't think the number of lines has anything to do with the content of the thread. My post on the brain and the mind was a "one-liner", and that has motivated some pretty good discussions that I am enjoying.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
BillHoyt,
----
No. If it is an assertion of fact, it is either true or false. What I do for a living has no relevance.
----

That is true, I don't disagree with that. I'm saying that 'all other things constant...' the biologist knows more about biology than Sagan. I don't think we reallyare in disagreement.
What happens when two equally-educated biologists disagree? What happens in the scientific community? Do they seek out a biologist with a degree from a better university? No. Do they defer to the one with the higher IQ? No.

Contrariwise, what happens when scientists in one discipline publish cross-over papers? Are those ignored? No. How about if they contravene the current thinking? Are they ignored then? No.

Do you have a sense of the flaws in the approach based on authority?

Cheers,

----
What happens when two equally-educated biologists disagree? What happens in the scientific community? Do they seek out a biologist with a degree from a better university? No. Do they defer to the one with the higher IQ? No.

Contrariwise, what happens when scientists in one discipline publish cross-over papers? Are those ignored? No. How about if they contravene the current thinking? Are they ignored then? No.
----


Those are interesting hypotheticals. Would they be ignored if they weren't well-known scientists in the first place? Perhaps.


----
Do you have a sense of the flaws in the approach based on authority?
----


Certainly.

So anyways, let's both get this thread back to talking about the common ancestor that we hypothesize that we share.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini

Certainly.

So anyways, let's both get this thread back to talking about the common ancestor that we hypothesize that we share.

I make no such hypothesis. I know you and I share common ancestors. Do you want to extend the question to mean "common ancestor to all of life" and if so, why do you refuse to start with the TalkOrigins material?

Cheers,

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini
LeFevre,


----
and what reason, probably, is that? So you have reasons to post here other than discussing with people? What are some of those reasons? Are you trying to piss off "atheists"? Another type of group? People in general?
----


I'm not trying to piss off anybody. If they can't take the heat...then get out of the kitchen! :)

I might say some things that they violently disagree with (and vice-versa with me being the disagree-er) - such is the nature of highly opinated discussions like philosophy and religion and the nature of The Truth (tm).

There are many people who start threads like: "Christians are Dumbass Gamblers". Why don't people ask them what their motives are?

I asked you Whodini, if you dont want to answer as to why you are being so contrary, fine.

IIRC you basically wrote as much in that thread discussing Scientology. After you have viewed each "side", do you personally form conclusions? If so, do you like to discuss those thoughts?

Do you feel like you need to check folks here by doing what you are doing? Do you need to do a tit for tat thing with posters who start threads like "Christians are Dumbass Gamblers"?

----
I make no such hypothesis. I know you and I share common ancestors.
----


OK.


----
Do you want to extend the question to mean "common ancestor to all of life"
----


Sure, we could explore that too, it seems like a natural extension.


----
and if so, why do you refuse to start with the TalkOrigins material?
----


Because I'm interested in what you have to say on things.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
I make no such hypothesis. I know you and I share common ancestors.
----


OK.


----
Do you want to extend the question to mean "common ancestor to all of life"
----


Sure, we could explore that too, it seems like a natural extension.


----
and if so, why do you refuse to start with the TalkOrigins material?
----


Because I'm interested in what you have to say on things.

Now we've established yet more disturbing things here, haven't we. Some a bit along the lines LeVevre recently alluded to. First, we've established that you didn't see fit to correct the general drift of this thread away from RichardR's interpretation of "common ancestor for human origins." As a corollary, we've established that neither did you support his post. Secondly, we keep establishing this bizarre proposition that you want to hear what we have to say on things. But if those things we have to say correspond to things already written over at TalkOrigins, that somehow is not allowed.

How about we cut to the chase here. How about we stop playing games. Let's take the freakin gloves off and get to the underlying issue: the whodinis in whodiniville simply don't like science. Neither do the whodinis in whodiniville understand science. Hmm? How about it?

Cheers,

Bill,


----
Secondly, we keep establishing this bizarre proposition that you want to hear what we have to say on things. But if those things we have to say correspond to things already written over at TalkOrigins, that somehow is not allowed.
----


No, that is fine, but I want to hear it from you, not just be directed to TalkOrigins, a site whose pages number well over 100, and be expected to read pages and pages of involved articles.

Does that make sense?


----
How about we cut to the chase here. How about we stop playing games. Let's take the freakin gloves off and get to the underlying issue: the whodinis in whodiniville simply don't like science. Neither do the whodinis in whodiniville understand science. Hmm? How about it?
----


I dislike science and I don't understand it? That's news to me. I guess I should have got my degrees in another area. I should throw away my Sigma Xi's and go back to Mad and Cracked. After that, I should throw away my bookcase filled with biology, mathematics, statistics, and evolution textbooks. Finally, all of my papers in my file cabinets probably don't exist either, nor does my single mathematical publication.

Your bouncer techniques aren't effective in a debate.

[fishbob]

Your contrarian techniques aren't effective in a debate either. Neither is your boasting.

This thread did not appear to start out as a debate. You appeared to be asking for information. Did anything anybody posted answer your questions?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini Bill,


----
Secondly, we keep establishing this bizarre proposition that you want to hear what we have to say on things. But if those things we have to say correspond to things already written over at TalkOrigins, that somehow is not allowed.
----


No, that is fine, but I want to hear it from you, not just be directed to TalkOrigins, a site whose pages number well over 100, and be expected to read pages and pages of involved articles.

Does that make sense?


I can understand that. Asking someone to summerize is cool. But would you have made them wast their time explaining only to naysay what they wrote? Would you be, well. . . difficult just to be difficult?


----
How about we cut to the chase here. How about we stop playing games. Let's take the freakin gloves off and get to the underlying issue: the whodinis in whodiniville simply don't like science. Neither do the whodinis in whodiniville understand science. Hmm? How about it?
----


I dislike science and I don't understand it? That's news to me. I guess I should have got my degrees in another area. I should throw away my Sigma Xi's and go back to Mad and Cracked. After that, I should throw away my bookcase filled with biology, mathematics, statistics, and evolution textbooks. Finally, all of my papers in my file cabinets probably don't exist either, nor does my single mathematical publication.

Your bouncer techniques aren't effective in a debate. [/QUOTE]

So why ask then dude? You know the answers to the questions you ask, no? So it seems to me that there are few reasons as to why you have been so contrary and made things difficult (on purpose I assume) with your questions (that you know the probable, provisional, answers to I also assume, you aint stupid). If you dont have some side motive that you are on about, excellent. However it seems to me, Whodini, that for a good while now you have had some type of agenda. I am not sure if you really do have one, but I do wonder from your posts. What is your deal with science? What exactly do you disagree, if anything at all, with science?


If you have been doing something trying to make a point, I think many here have missed it. Throwing out a "worm" for bait sounds like you are trolling.


So, do you have some extra reason for what you have been doing? Does the way need to be bricked by pissing people off? Is kindness and open, honest, discussion for everyone except the atheist or scientist or whoever?


I would really appreciate it if you came out with whatever it is it seems to me you are trying to get at. If you really and truely dont have something you are trying to get some others to see, or teach, or some type of tit for tat thing, or something else I haven't thought of, I apologise. But I am being open and honest with you Whodini. You (seem like :)) a cool dude, and I tell you that you have been acting like an ass for a bit now.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by fishbob
Your contrarian techniques aren't effective in a debate either. Neither is your boasting.

This thread did not appear to start out as a debate. You appeared to be asking for information. Did anything anybody posted answer your questions?

are you sure they were questions or worms used as bait?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini

No, that is fine, but I want to hear it from you, not just be directed to TalkOrigins, a site whose pages number well over 100, and be expected to read pages and pages of involved articles.

Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense. Unfortunately for you, it fits perfectly into a growing picture of intellectual laziness. You want the Cliff notes edition.

I dislike science and I don't understand it? That's news to me. I guess I should have got my degrees in another area. I should throw away my Sigma Xi's and go back to Mad and Cracked. After that, I should throw away my bookcase filled with biology, mathematics, statistics, and evolution textbooks. Finally, all of my papers in my file cabinets probably don't exist either, nor does my single mathematical publication.

Your bouncer techniques aren't effective in a debate.
My bouncer techniques aren't effective? Let's try this one on for size. A blast from your past, posted 14 July 2002:
To me, and remember, I'm not a scientist. I do not have a Ph.D, only a B.S. in Math, and I have little experience because I am young, so I may not have any idea whatsoever of what I am talking about;
What fabulous academic achievement!. In about nine months you moved from holding a single B.S. in mathematics to holding "degrees." And now one of them is in science?

Called your bluff, pipsqueak.

----
It makes perfect sense. Unfortunately for you, it fits perfectly into a growing picture of intellectual laziness. You want the Cliff notes edition.
----


Bill,

What of TalkOrigins do you expect people to read when you post a link to it?


----
What fabulous academic achievement!. In about nine months you moved from holding a single B.S. in mathematics to holding "degrees." And now one of them is in science?

Called your bluff, pipsqueak.
----


Not really. I'll let you work out your error.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
[B
Not really. I'll let you work out your error. [/B]

pipsqueak.

----
I can understand that. Asking someone to summerize is cool.
----


Yes, and in the future I'll be more specific with the types of questions I ask so as to avoid scuffles.


----
What is your deal with science? What exactly do you disagree, if anything at all, with science?
----


I just asked if all life sharing DNA is evidence of commonality, or could it be evidence of something else. That is, are there any other good explanations.


----
Does the way need to be bricked by pissing people off?
----


Certainly not.


----
Is kindness and open, honest, discussion for everyone except the atheist or scientist or whoever?
----


No, for everyone.

Originally posted by BillHoyt

pipsqueak.


Are you done yet?

Good.

Now let's (both) get back to biology.

I'll try to think of a better way to ask my questions, OK? And I apologize for being dense.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini



Are you done yet?

Good.

Now let's (both) get back to biology.

I'll try to think of a better way to ask my questions, OK?

The point utterly eludes you, but I'll play along a bit.

Is DNA evidence of a common ancestor? As Denise pointed out, the question is already wrong in at least one sense. There are life forms (or near-life forms) whose encoding is embodied in RNA, not DNA. So the question should be extended to ask, do the various DNA->RNA->protein engines out there point to a common ancestor? Let's look at the evidence:

o DNA->RNA->proteins is the translation engine in the vast majority of organisms
o In the exceptions, RNA is first transcribed to DNA, and then the DNA->RNA->proteins pathway is followed
o The encoding of DNA (that is, what codons mean what to the ribosome translation engines) is the same in the vast majority of organisms
o The exceptions to the universal code are only found when we a) examine other kingdoms or b) examine organelles that were previously from other kingdoms and are now obligate parasites of other organisms.

What are we to make of these facts? A few hypotheses immediately come to mind:
1. We all descended from a common ancestor
2. We descended from multiple ancestors whose DNA was closely related, but not perfectly the same
3. We were all designed by some unknown entity

3 Immediately poses problems for us. First, it violates Occam's razor. Secondly, it raises the question of why the differences? To get around that one, one needs to assume this entity seized control long enough to make an ancestor, then let go of the reigns so that evolutionary changes occurred over time. Either that, or one needs to assume the entity created everything just as we see them today, but for some bizarre reason, tinkered around with a few of the designs. One also needs to explain why this entity would, over and over again, build separate (and different) power plants (mitochondria, where many of the encoding differences have been found) with separate (and different) DNA codes. This hypothesis crumbles under its own weight rather rapidly.

2. Here we have problems also. What is the probability that two completely independent descent pathways wound up with so much sameness. The same base DNA nucleotides, transcribed to the same base RNA nucleotides, with very similar ribosomal machinery to transcribe to very much the same codon->amino acid mappings. The other problem is that, on closer examination, from a biochemical standpoint, many of the code changes involve small shifts, suggesting changes from a common root code. Even these "different" encodings are not that different; they are mostly the same. NIH source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi?mode=c)

We are left with 1 as the best understanding of what happened. There is, of course, much more supporting evidence for this conclusion, but this is my Cliff Notes version.

Cheers,

[edit: corrected typos -bh]

[Diogenes]

Great response BH. I always learn something when you take the time to respond, as if the questioner actually wants an informed answer.

That said...

Originally posted by Whodini
Is the fact that all living things have DNA proof of a common ancestor, or something else?

With hindsight, and all the pedantic antics, semantic sparring and sarcastic jousting, this should have been a poll..


1. Proof of common ancestry.

2. Proof of something else.

3. I don't know.

4. So what?


I'm really strugging between 2 & 3 ....:)

----
The point utterly eludes you, but I'll play along a bit.
----


Thank you for providing me with what I should have been more specific to ask for in the first place. That was my fault and I will be more careful in the future.

However, I have lost all interest in this topic now.
(kidding with this last part)

;)

I'll try and respond to some of your points in the coming days after I've thought about them for a while.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
The point utterly eludes you, but I'll play along a bit.
----


Thank you for providing me with what I should have been more specific to ask for in the first place. That was my fault and I will be more careful in the future.

However, I have lost all interest in this topic now.
(kidding with this last part)

;)

I'll try and respond to some of your points in the coming days after I've thought about them for a while.

lol well I guess Whodini thought about it. I am not sure why he left. I will (kinda sorta :) ) miss some of the discussions he started.

I don't think I will miss the contrarian Whodini much though :eek:

If you read this Whodini, you will always be welcome on PalTalk.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Whodini
Is the fact that all living things have DNA proof of a common ancestor, or something else?


Close to it. There are a number of different permutations of component chemicals which are known to have the key properties that nucleotides have. The number of permutations available exceeds the number of of particles in the known universe in current models. But all of life on earth uses just one permutation. The odds of biogenesis happening twice and happening to hit on the same permutation two times in a row are rather small... the odds of it happening as many times as there are known species on earth is nonzero, but ridiculously small. Others have posted links to resources related to the usenet newsgroup talk.origins where these concepts are described in greater detail.