Sewage water bacteria helps fill 'missing link' in early evolution

I just predicted this in another thread. And was given low marks besides. LOL, the slings and arrows of philistines, luddites and stoopid monkeys.

I just predicted this in another thread. And was given low marks besides. LOL, the slings and arrows of philistines, luddites and stoopid monkeys.

And the god of the gaps just got a little smaller yet again....

I already goth 16 typerings and 21 karyo's on my website, Albert.

So, in some incredibly distant past; God (or Alien space visitor - your choice) pulled the handle on the commode while passing over the earth, exclaiming; "Let there be life!" And now here we are.

How fortunate for us to know where we came from. Somehow I always knew we were full of it.

So because they're bigger and divide more slowly PROVES....what?

What is it about the "structure" that suggests this finding?

Can we say vague bull****?

So because they're bigger and divide more slowly PROVES....what?

What is it about the "structure" that suggests this finding?

Can we say vague bull****?

Hmm. For whatever strange reason it seems like your questions are rhetorical. And what's with the proof fetish? I thought by now you would have learned that science is about evidence; proofs are for math.

And just look what I did for you: http://www.scienc....summary

You're welcome.

Ahh I see they aren't proving anything, they're just "suggesting"...

I suggest we start spending money on people who can give more than suggestions...

And thanks for the link to the abstract...I guess? Didn't do any more for me than the article, but whatever.

I fail to see what this has to do with "gaps" of any sort in evolutionary theories: what is there in the "fusion" hypothesis that counters evolution? It seems to me that nature is free to do anything that works whether it comports with Darwinistic dogma or not.

As for the claims of this paper, what's to say that these organisms haven't acquired some of the characteristics of Eucharistic cells by convergent evolution?

So in your world, scientists should wait until they've conclusively proven an idea before they present it to the scientific community. Huh.

I read the paper. The authors point out a lot of strongly suggestive structural similarities between certain gram-negative bacterial phyla and both eukaryotes and archaea. Basically, these structures look like intermediates between unique structures found in eukaryotes and archaea, respectively. Some of the structures discussed in the paper are the peptidoglycan-based cell wall of bacteria, bacterial cytoskeletal protein FtsZ and eukaryotic tubulin, the endomembrane system that compartmentalizes the cytoplasm, the PVC and bacterial periplasms, and vesicle-like structures.

So in your world, scientists should wait until they've conclusively proven an idea before they present it to the scientific community. Huh.

So in your world something can be plausible even if unproven? What about God? Seems that then becomes a matter of opinion about plausibility and less about facts or science.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So in your world something can be plausible even if unproven? What about God? Seems that then becomes a matter of opinion about plausibility and less about facts or science.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In my world, something can be *possible* until evidence shows otherwise. Evidence can't prove anything.

But it can disprove anything.

The existence of a god can't be disproven because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis. The existence of a specific deity, however - such as YHWH or Allah - could be disproven *if there were specific falsifiable claims about the nature of the deity.*

For example, if YHWH is claimed to have created life in its current form, and the evidence shows that life evolved from earlier, different forms, that would be evidence against that claim. If you combine that with claims that YHWH is also omnipotent, omniscient, and truthful, then it counts as evidence against his very existence.

So in your world, scientists should wait until they've conclusively proven an idea before they present it to the scientific community. Huh.

So in your world something can be plausible even if unproven? What about God? Seems that then becomes a matter of opinion about plausibility and less about facts or science.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Wow. Well, to add my two cents, I agree that suggestions can definitely be plausible before there is evidence or "proof". It happens ALL THE TIME in science. Watson and Crick suggested that DNA is replicated in a semi-conservative manner. There was no evidence supporting that suggestion, yet it was that very suggestion, a single line in their paper on the structure of DNA, that won them the Nobel Prize. And it was a very fruitful suggestion, extremely plausible, ultimately correct, and had no evidence to support it at the time. Things can be true even if not proven, it's called insight.

In my world, something can be *possible* until evidence shows otherwise. Evidence can't prove anything.

But it can disprove anything.

Ah, I see sorry. I'm just suggesting God exists then. That puts it on the same level as the postulates in this article...

And the god of the gaps just got a little smaller yet again....

The gaps do indeed shrink, but they also become more numerous.

Where as before there was 1 big gap, there are now 2 small gaps; one on each 'side' of the discovered 'missing link' that will be pointed at by the cretinists.

I wish the popular media would just stop using the godawful phrase 'missing link'!

For billions of years, bacteria (single celled organisms without a nucleus) were the only cellular life form on earth. Then, about 1.6 – 2.1 billion years ago, eukaryotic cells emerged. These cells (with a nucleus) heralded the evolution of multi-cellular life on earth including: plants, insects, animals and humans.

Right off the bat, the whole postulate falls on its face: Billions of years cannot be shown to be true but can only be adopted as a philosophical stance.
No matter how much the researchers speculate about possible similarities being an indication of connection between two organisms, they cannot conclusively say that that is how the nucleus arrived on earth - they simply do not have documented evidence that it was so. They can only speculate. No one can go back into the past to "prove" that what they say is true. So don't take it as truth.

In my world, something can be *possible* until evidence shows otherwise. Evidence can't prove anything.

But it can disprove anything.

Ah, I see sorry. I'm just suggesting God exists then. That puts it on the same level as the postulates in this article...

Can you read? Do you understand what the following means?

The existence of a god can't be disproven because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Can you read? Do you understand what the following means?

So you're saying he could exist then. Unless you are saying you can prove something you can't. Which is it?

Can you read? Do you understand what the following means?

So you're saying he could exist then. Unless you are saying you can prove something you can't. Which is it?

You seem to fear that one essential word: "falsifiable".
And yes, he could exist then.
In the same sense as any creation of one's mind could exist.

And yes, he could exist then.
In the same sense as any creation of one's mind could exist.

In any sense he could, the word existence means what it means. That's why we use words instead of grunts and clicks...

Which is something you seem to be having difficulty with.

And yes, he could exist then.
In the same sense as any creation of one's mind could exist.

In any sense he could, the word existence means what it means.

Yes. But not always the same. The books on my shelf have an existence of their own - they'll be still around when I'll have gone.
The music existing in my head, however, will be gone with me.
That's not the same kind of existence.

Objects which are postulated in non-falsifiable statements don't have an existence like the books of my example. But they have an existence like the music of my example.

Shared ideas have an existance all their own. Not as tangible as the books, nor as fleeting at the music in your head, but somewhere in between.

If your faith in God or science gives hope for a better existance to those who cannot find it elsewhere, then I'm all for good things. If your faith in God or science expects the abuse, denegration or destruction of others for believing differently then that is a false faith and we will be enemies.

(removed text from duplicated post - Apparently I hit quote rather than edit)

The Internet: One big argument about creationism vs natural processes.