Looking for LUCA, the last universal common ancestor

December 18, 2018 by Keith Cooper, NASA
A hydrothermal vent in the north-east Pacific Ocean, similar to the kind of environment in which LUCA seems to have lived. Credit: NOAA

Around 4 billion years ago there lived a microbe called LUCA: the Last Universal Common Ancestor. There is evidence that it could have lived a somewhat 'alien' lifestyle, hidden away deep underground in iron-sulfur rich hydrothermal vents. Anaerobic and autotrophic, it didn't breathe air and made its own food from the dark, metal-rich environment around it. Its metabolism depended upon hydrogen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, turning them into organic compounds such as ammonia. Most remarkable of all, this little microbe was the beginning of a long lineage that encapsulates all life on Earth.

If we trace the far enough back in time, we come to find that we're all related to LUCA. If the war cry for our exploration of Mars is 'follow the water', then in the search for LUCA it's 'follow the '. The study of the genetic tree of , which reveals the genetic relationships and evolutionary history of organisms, is called phylogenetics. Over the last 20 years our technological ability to fully sequence genomes and build up vast genetic libraries has enabled phylogenetics to truly come of age and has taught us some profound lessons about life's early history.

For a long time it was thought that the tree of life formed three main branches, or domains, with LUCA at the base – eukarya, bacteria and archaea. The latter two – the prokaryotes – share similarities in being unicellular and lack a nucleus, and are differentiated from one another by subtle chemical and metabolic differences. Eukarya, on the other hand, are the complex, multicellular life forms comprised of membrane-encased cells, each incorporating a nucleus containing the genetic code as well as the mitochondria 'organelles' powering the cell's metabolism. The eukarya are considered so radically different from the other two branches as to necessarily occupy its own domain.

However, a new picture has emerged that places eukarya as an offshoot of bacteria and archaea. This "two-domain tree" was first hypothesized by evolutionary biologist Jim Lake at UCLA in 1984, but only got a foothold in the last decade, in particular due to the work of evolutionary molecular biologist Martin Embley and his lab at the University of Newcastle, UK, as well as evolutionary biologist William Martin at the Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Bill Martin and six of his Düsseldorf colleagues (Madeline Weiss, Filipa Sousa, Natalia Mrnjavac, Sinje Neukirchen, Mayo Roettger and Shijulal Nelson-Sathi) published a 2016 paper in the journal Nature Microbiology describing this new perspective on LUCA and the two-domain tree with phylogenetics.

Ancient genes

Previous studies of LUCA looked for common, universal genes that are found in all genomes, based on the assumption that if all life has these genes, then these genes must have come from LUCA. This approach has identified about 30 genes that belonged to LUCA, but they're not enough to tell us how or where it lived. Another tactic involves searching for genes that are present in at least one member of each of the two prokaryote domains, archaea and bacteria. This method has identified 11,000 common genes that could potentially have belonged to LUCA, but it seems far-fetched that they all did: with so many genes LUCA would have been able to do more than any modern cell can.

Bill Martin and his team realized that a phenomenon known as lateral gene transfer (LGT) was muddying the waters by being responsible for the presence of most of these 11,000 genes. LGT involves the transfer of genes between species and even across domains via a variety of processes such as the spreading of viruses or homologous recombination that can take place when a cell is placed under some kind of stress.

A growing bacteria or archaea can take in genes from the environment around them by 'recombining' new genes into their DNA strand. Often this newly-adopted DNA is closely related to the DNA already there, but sometimes the new DNA can originate from a more distant relation. Over the course of 4 billion years, genes can move around quite a bit, overwriting much of LUCA's original genetic signal. Genes found in both archaea and bacteria could have been shared through LGT and hence would not necessarily have originated in LUCA.

The field of hydrothermal vents known as Loki’s Castle, in the North Atlantic Ocean, where scientists found archaea believed to be related to the archaea that created eukaryotes through endosymbiosis with bacteria. Credit: R B Pedersen/Centre for Geobiology

Knowing this, Martin's team searched for 'ancient' genes that have exceptionally long lineages but do not seem to have been shared around by LGT, on the assumption that these should therefore come from LUCA. They laid out conditions for a gene to be considered as originating in LUCA. To make the cut, the ancient gene could not have been moved around by LGT and it had to be present in at least two groups of archaea and two groups of bacteria.

"While we were going through the data, we had goosebumps because it was all pointing in one very specific direction," says Martin.

Once they had finished their analysis, Bill Martin's team was left with just 355 genes from the original 11,000, and they argue that these 355 definitely belonged to LUCA and can tell us something about how LUCA lived.

Such a small number of genes, of course, would not support life as we know it, and critics immediately latched onto this apparent gene shortage, pointing out that essential components capable of nucleotide and amino acid biosynthesis, for example, were missing. "We didn't even have a complete ribosome," admits Martin.

However, their methodology required that they omit all genes that have undergone LGT, so had a ribosomal protein undergone LGT, it wouldn't be included in the list of LUCA's genes. They also speculated that LUCA could have gotten by using molecules in the environment to fill the functions of lacking genes, for example molecules that can synthesize amino acids. After all, says Martin, biochemistry at this early stage in life's evolution was still primitive and all the theories about the origin of life and the first cells incorporate chemical synthesis from their environment.

What those 355 genes do tell us is that LUCA lived in hydrothermal vents. The Düsseldorf team's analysis indicates that LUCA used molecular hydrogen as an energy source. Serpentinization within hydrothermal vents can produce copious amounts of molecular hydrogen. Plus, LUCA contained a gene for making an enzyme called 'reverse gyrase', which is found today in extremophiles existing in high-temperature environments including hydrothermal vents.

Two-domain tree

Martin Embley, who specializes in the study eukaryotic evolution, says the realization of the two-domain tree over the past decade, including William Martin's work to advance the theory, has been a "breakthrough" and has far-reaching implications on how we view the evolution of early life. "The two-domain tree of life, where the basal split is between the archaea and the bacteria, is now the best supported hypothesis," he says.

It is widely accepted that the first archaea and bacteria were likely clostridia (anaerobes intolerant of oxygen) and methanogens, because today's modern versions share many of the same properties as LUCA. These properties include a similar core physiology and a dependence on hydrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and transition metals (the metals provide catalysis by hybridizing their unfilled electron shells with carbon and nitrogen). Yet, a major question remains: What were the first eukaryotes like and where do they fit into the tree of life?

A schematic of the two-domain tree, with eukaryotes evolving from endosymbiosis between members of the two original trunks of the tree, archaea and bacteria. Credit: Weiss et al/Nature Microbiology

Phylogenetics suggests that eukaryotes evolved through the process of endosymbiosis, wherein an archaeal host merged with a symbiont, in this case a bacteria belonging to the alphaproteobacteria group. In the particular symbiosis that spawned the development of eukarya, the bacteria somehow came to thrive within their archaeal host rather than be destroyed. Hence, bacteria came to not only exist within archaea but empowered their hosts to grow bigger and contain increasingly large amounts of DNA. After aeons of evolution, the symbiont bacteria evolved into what we know today as mitochondria, which are little battery-like organelles that provide energy for the vastly more complex eukaryotic cells. Consequently, eukaryotes are not one of the main branches of the tree-of-life, but merely a large offshoot.

A paper that appeared recently in Nature, written by a team led by Thijs Ettema at Uppsala University in Sweden, has shed more light on the evolution of eukaryotes. In hydrothermal vents located in the North Atlantic Ocean – centered between Greenland, Iceland and Norway, known collectively as Loki's Castle– they found a new phylum of archaea that they fittingly named the 'Asgard' super-phylum after the realm of the Norse gods. The individual microbial species within the super-phylum were then named after Norse gods: Lokiarchaeota, Thorarchaeota, Odinarchaeota and Heimdallarchaeota. This super-phylum represents the closest living relatives to eukaryotes, and Ettema's hypothesis is that eukaryotes evolved from one of these archaea, or a currently undiscovered sibling to them, around 2 billion years ago.

Closing in on LUCA

If it's possible to date the advent of eukaryotes, and even pinpoint the species of archaea and bacteria they evolved from, can phylogenetics also date LUCA's beginning and its split into the two domains?

It must be noted that LUCA is not the origin of life. The earliest evidence of life dates to 3.7 billion years ago in the form of stromatolites, which are layers of sediment laid down by microbes. Presumably, life may have existed even before that. Yet, LUCA's arrival and its evolution into archaea and bacteria could have occurred at any point between 2 to 4 billion years ago.

Phylogenetics help narrow this down, but Martin Embley isn't sure our analytical tools are yet capable of such a feat. "The problem with phylogenetics is that the tools commonly used to do phylogenetic analysis are not really sophisticated enough to deal with the complexities of molecular evolution over such vast spans of evolutionary time," he says.

Embley believes this is why the three-domain tree hypothesis lasted so long – we just didn't have the tools required to disprove it. However, the realization of the two-domain tree suggests that better techniques are now being developed to handle these challenges.

These techniques include examining the ways biochemistry, as performed in origin-of-life experiments in the lab, can coincide with the realities of what actually happens in biology.

This is a concern for Nick Lane, an evolutionary biochemist at University College of London, UK. "What I think has been missing from the equation is a biological point of view," he says. "It seems trivially easy to make organic [compounds] but much more difficult to get them to spontaneously self-organize, so there are questions of structure that have largely been missing from the chemist's perspective."

Jupiter’s moon Europa has a subterranean ocean, a rocky seabed, and geothermal heat produced by Jupiter’s gravitational tides. Water, rock and heat were all that were required by LUCA, so could similar life also exist on Europa? Credit: NASA/JPL–Caltech/SETI Institute

For example, Lane highlights how lab experiments routinely construct the building blocks of life from chemicals like cyanide, or how ultraviolet light is utilized as an ad hoc energy source, yet no known life uses these things. Although Lane sees this as a disconnect between lab biochemistry and the realities of biology, he points out that William (Bill) Martin's work is helping to fill the void by corresponding to real-world biology and conditions found in real-life hydrothermal vents. "That's why Bill's reconstruction of LUCA is so exciting, because it produces this beautiful, independent link-up with real world biology," Lane says.

The biochemistry results in part from the geology and the materials that are available within it to build life, says Martin Embley. He sees phylogenetics as the correct tool to find the answer, citing the Wood–Ljungdahl carbon-fixing pathway as evidence for this.

Carbon-fixing involves taking non-organic carbon and turning it into organic carbon compounds that can be used by life. There are six known carbon-fixing pathways and work conducted over many decades by microbiologist Georg Fuchs at the University of Freiburg has shown that the Wood–Ljungdahl pathway is the most ancient of all the pathways and, therefore, the one most likely to have been used by LUCA. Indeed, this is corroborated by the findings of Bill Martin's team.

In simple terms the Wood–Ljundahl pathway, which is adopted by bacteria and archaea, starts with hydrogen and carbon dioxide and sees the latter reduced to carbon monoxide and formic acid that can be used by life. "The Wood–Ljungdahl pathway points to an alkaline hydrothermal environment, which provides all the things necessary for it – structure, natural proton gradients, hydrogen and ," says Martin. "It's marrying up a geological context with a biological scenario, and it has only been recently that phylogenetics has been able to support this."

Astrobiological implications

Understanding the origin of life and the identity of LUCA is vital not only to explaining the presence of life on Earth, but possibly that on other worlds, too. Hydrothermal vents that were home to LUCA turn out to be remarkably common within our solar system. All that's needed is rock, water and geochemical heat. "I think that if we find life elsewhere it's going to look, at least chemically, very much like modern life," says Martin.

Moons with cores of rock surrounded by vast global oceans of water, topped by a thick crust of water-ice, populate the Outer Solar System. Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's moon Enceladus are perhaps the most famous, but there is evidence that hints at subterranean oceans on Saturn's moons Titan and Rhea, as well as the dwarf planet Pluto and many other Solar System bodies. It's not difficult to imagine hydrothermal vents on the floors of some of these underground seas, with energy coming from gravitational tidal interactions with their parent planets. The fact that the Sun does not penetrate through the ice ceiling does not matter – the kind of LUCA that Martin describes had no need for sunlight either.

"Among the astrobiological implications of our LUCA paper is the fact that you do not need light," says Martin. "It's chemical energy that ran the origin of life, chemical energy that ran the first cells and chemical energy that is present today on bodies like Enceladus."

As such, the discoveries that are developing our picture of the origin of life and the existence of LUCA raise hopes that life could just as easily exist in a virtually identical environment on a distant locale such as Europa or Enceladus. Now that we know how LUCA lived, we know the signs of life to look out for during future missions to these icy moons.

Explore further: Early life had evolutionary power to survive radical changes in environment

More information: Madeline C. Weiss et al. The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor, Nature Microbiology (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.116

Laura Eme et al. Archaea and the origin of eukaryotes, Nature Reviews Microbiology (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.133

Related Stories

New insights into the ancestors of all complex life

May 26, 2017

A team of scientists led by the University of Bristol has provided new insights into the origins of the Archaea, the group of simple cellular organisms that are the ancestors of all complex life.

Recommended for you

'Zebra' tribal bodypaint cuts fly bites 10-fold: study

January 16, 2019

Traditional white-striped bodypainting practiced by indigenous communities mimics zebra stripes to reduce the number of potentially harmful horsefly bites a person receives by up to 10-fold, according to new research published ...

Big genome found in tiny forest defoliator

January 15, 2019

The European gypsy moth (EGM) is perhaps the country's most famous invasive insect—a nonnative species accidentally introduced to North America in the 1860s when a few escaped from a breeding experiment in suburban Boston. ...

Why haven't cancer cells undergone genetic meltdowns?

January 15, 2019

Cancer first develops as a single cell going rogue, with mutations that trigger aggressive growth at all costs to the health of the organism. But if cancer cells were accumulating harmful mutations faster than they could ...

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JoePizza
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2018
What if there wasn't any LUCA?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2018
Did you read the whole article?
JoePizza
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2018
Did you read the whole article?


Yes, I did. Did you have a point? Make it.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2018
Did you read the whole article?
@Whyde
Ol' Joey is one of those Creationist cretins trolling the site

feel free to draw out more from him so I can see if he is a sock, but he freely admits to his religious ideology here; https://phys.org/...ife.html

he said
And at least I am not as gullible as evolutionists
plus more

and no, he won't actually read the studies or articles

he is here to troll for his religion
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2018
For anyone interested, here is the 2016 PDF published in Nature - the above link is paywalled, but this is not:
http://www.geomus...LUCA.pdf
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2018
Did you read the whole article?


Yes, I did. Did you have a point? Make it.

With a pre existing bias, perhaps...?
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2018
In my understanding at first reading of this article.
& thanks Captain for the l;ink to the original paper.
{sigh} That's going to take a few readings for me to absorb.

I think this research is important in that it clarifies the hypothesis that there was a single preceding event. Out of aeons of uncountable chemical reactions randomly building, destroying, rebuilding organic chemical combinations.

Trillions of lotto tickets in play that resulted in a single winning genome of archaic life. That scrounged out a living from the detritus of all the losing attempts.

Surviving, thriving & eventually mutating into the diversity of modern life.

In my {grumpy & unsupported} opinion, there is a rather festive assumption that similar events producing life, may have occurred on other planets.

I do not agree. However, I urge caution at exploring these possibilities. We get monkey exuberant & we could kill off what we wanted to find!
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2018
The idea that the common ancestor is necessarily small or microscopic is an assumption made with such confidence that it is not even tested, established or justified in any way. All assumptions need to be tested. There is no reason why a loose body many meters in diameter, little more than a cloud of matter loosely bound and floating in the water could not have been the first life-like object (for instance).
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2018
"It must be noted that LUCA is not the origin of life. The earliest evidence of life dates to 3.7 billion years ago in the form of stromatolites, which are layers of sediment laid down by microbes. Presumably, life may have existed even before that. Yet, LUCA's arrival and its evolution into archaea and bacteria could have occurred at any point between 2 to 4 billion years ago."

But the title says: Looking for LUCA-the last universal COMMON ancestor

"Bill Martin and his team realized that a phenomenon known as lateral gene transfer (LGT) was muddying the waters by being responsible for the presence of most of these 11,000 genes. LGT involves the transfer of genes between species and even across domains via a variety of processes such as the spreading of viruses or homologous recombination that can take place when a cell is placed under some kind of stress."

Quite apparently, the search isn't over and might never be at this rate.
LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2018
Did you read the whole article?


Yes, I did. Did you have a point? Make it.

With a pre existing bias, perhaps...?
says Whyde

And YOU with a pre-existing assumption, perhaps? Are you scoring points with the 5-Star Club. by any chance?
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2018
Did you read the whole article?


Yes, I did. Did you have a point? Make it.

With a pre existing bias, perhaps...?
says Whyde

And YOU with a pre-existing assumption, perhaps? Are you scoring points with the 5-Star Club. by any chance?

Mr Pizza's comments in other threads, have let me know his pre-existing bias.
I will allow that this process might have occurred in more than one location, given the incredible amount of bio-chemistry going on AROUND the planet., so a single LUCA might be a chimera event. But that is all.
The "5 star club" votes how they want to. Just like the "1 star club" does...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2018
So due to JoePizza having his own opinion on some issues/topics in some other forums, you've decided to treat him like crap in this one"?
I am not aware of a 1Star Club. Could you point them out?

The last universal COMMON ANCESTOR seems to mean what it says. Therefore I think it prudent to wait for further events/results before I decide to celebrate.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2018
Oh yay, another evilution thread with spamming by YECs.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2018
Another issue that I have with this topic, is that these "creatures" are said to have their base in the Pacific Ocean - and another in the Atlantic.
And then there is the myth that ALL homo sapiens originated in Africa, possibly South Africa - and yet, the "earliest microbial eukaryotic ancestors of man" may not BE from Africa.
This seems to be a swamp of unverifiable evidence from what is available.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2018
Perhaps LUCA was a daughter cell (many times over, gen after gen) from the actual single cell that was created in the waters of Earth. In turn, the tides scattered them into many parts of the seas since there was no landmass at the time billions of years ago.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2018

whyde?
Mission control calling wydening gyre
heyheybo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
Who said that the first self-organized systems are needed to create life?

All life exists because of….all other life that exists. Just consider life as a whole single system. Everything makes sense as just complex organic biochemistry. We are deluded that self-organization, self-replication, creating order from disorder exist, because of our perspective bias from being embedded inside the system
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
This review is welcome, though it looks a bit recycled, probably a result of a conference. It is a central interest to me, and I have recently practiced at the mentioned Ettema Lab. That said I am not up to the research edge and since it is so much to say I will risk pulling stuff from my memory (and hopefully not from my ass).

The two domain result as well as the tentative placement of Eukarya as closest to Asgard Archaea is as Embley note the best model, the support of Archaea and Bacteria with a common ancestor that was neither is more than a decade old and numerous.

-tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
-ctd-

As for Martin et al method to clear out horizontal gene transfer I am less certain since usually methods that handle them individually are needed, but the result is promising in its direction. Besides confirming anaerobicity, the WL pathway, thermophily and a common genetic machinery, it also establishes a half alive LUCA with full autotrophy and methyl group dependence from the serpentinization products in alkaline hydrothermal vents. It ties the universal common ancestor lineage to vents all the way, making life a sister geophenomena to such vents.

One claim of the review does not sit right with me. That methanogens were close to the LUCA is an old hypothesis, but AFAIK recent work on the WL pathway implies that as a somewhat later derivation.

-tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
-ctd-
Finally, the date of the evolution of life has AFAIK all the problems that Embley notes and more (as they have a tendency to push the root as far back as constraints allow). However a fair start may have been the recent work integrating fossil and genetic evidence [ https://www.natur...8-0644-x ]. Its credibility region lies within 100 Myrs after our system formed, which leaves 60 Myrs until the Moon formation impact and some tens of millions of years for Earth crust formation, plus it plays nice with the less than 100 Myrs of late bombardment that dynamic models of binary Trojans now imply.

[As usual the humbug superstition - nature does not work that way - comments make little to no sense, and do not merit any specific response.]
JoePizza
1 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2018
Did you read the whole article?


Yes, I did. Did you have a point? Make it.

With a pre existing bias, perhaps...?

So you don't have a point and you are just a troll. Got it.
You do realize that evolutionism still lacks a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, right? That would be a huge problem for any LUCA.

There isn't even a methodology to test the claim the eukaryotes evolved via stochastic processes.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
Which means joe, that you do noy have a methodology to dispute the evolitionaty sciences.

All you & seu & robert have is theology to try & prove any of you actually exist.
That the lot of you are not just simpleton YEC sockpuppets.
JoePizza
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2018
rrwillsj- your ignorance of science is not an argument. Just because you and yours don't have the methodology does not mean that ID doesn't.

Clearly you are just an ignorant troll.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
well hoe, your belief on Intelligent Design is a cute affection.

However,
in my inconsiderate opinion?
My Theory of Stupid Design jeeps beating the crap out of your theology.
JoePizza
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2018
Intelligent Design is supported by science and evidence. ID has the testable methodology.

You are just a scientifically illiterate troll
rrwillsj
not rated yet Dec 20, 2018
"trollin' trollin" SNAP! "rawhide!"

Since the deity keeps pestering me with infantile questions.
I asked one of my own.
"Why is the Universe such a kludged up mess?"
The best excuse the deity could come up with?
That it was not reasonable to accuse it of creating this Universe.
Nor does it accept responsibility for reality being so screwy!

That's how you know it's a deity. Never accepts the blame or shows any sense of responsibility!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2018
@joey the liar
Intelligent Design is supported by science and evidence
no, it is not
just because you want to believe it is science doesn't mean it meets the definition - read Judge William Overton in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and you will see that science has a very specific meaning, and by definition, ID doesn't meet that definition
ID has the testable methodology
having a testable methodology only means that you're testing the method

it doesn't mean that the method removes bias, nor does it mean that your method reflects reality

That is why the scientific method has brought us computers, space travel and medicine while religion has brought us war, famine, resource depletion, the dark ages, crusades and blatant stupidity

You are just a scientifically illiterate troll
JoePizza
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2018
Umm, if the universe was such a kludged up mess we wouldn't be able to make any sense of it. We wouldn't even be here.

Yet we can describe the laws that govern the universe mathematically- with accuracy and precision.

So no, the universe is not a kludged up mess.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."- Max Palnck
JoePizza
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2018
Intelligent Design is supported by the science and evidence. The codes the rule biological organisms are one such evidence. It is anti-scientific claptrap that says nature produced them.

Stumpy thinks that science can be ruled by dogma. How stupid and dull can you be?

Also Isaac Newton was the father of modern science and a Creationist.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2018
] "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."- Max Palnck

And a god said -
"Here, hold my beer, I wanna try somethin'..."
If ID guys really wanted to co-opt something they should say a god created the evolutionary process...
THAT would be smart...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2018
@idiot illiterate creationist troll joeyPP the liar
Intelligent Design is supported by the science and evidence
then why can't you link validated studies?

more to the point, why can't they get recognition from the court's as legitimate science?

hint: because it's not science
Stumpy thinks that science can be ruled by dogma
nope
that is religion
you know, like ID or YEC

science is ruled by evidence and methodology that removes bias - neither of which you've been able to provide, mind
Also Isaac Newton was the father of modern science and a Creationist
and he ate an apple once too, so because it was green or red, that makes him a christmas tree or a fruit using that same logic

idiots will cling to anything in order to justify their delusion
JoePizza
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2018
Whydening Gyre- Nice of you to ignore the context.

The ID position is that organisms were not only intelligently designed but they were designed with the capability to evolve and adapt. The book "Not By Chance" was only published 21 years ago. Time to catch up on what is being debated.

It has always been about the evolutionary processes. Are they blind and mindless or are they telic?

idiots will cling to anything in order to justify their delusion


That is exactly what you are doing, stumpy. Nice own goal
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2018
@idiot illiterate creationist troll joeyPP the liar
Whydening Gyre- Nice of you to ignore the context
you're ignoring the science and the evidence, but you'll get mad when you think someone is doing something like what you're doing here?

Hmm... there is a word for that
LOL
Time to catch up on what is being debated
the only debate ID has is within it's ranks, which lead to the factions like YEC
ID is a religion with a faith-based initial cause attempting to justify its belief, therefore it's not science and there is no scientific debate
That is exactly what you are doing, stumpy
that is called projection, and it's common among the religious fanatics

so - where are all those studies from reputable sources that are validated refuting the science like the studies I presented to you proving you're an idiot?

I'll wait

and I'll only keep bringing it up since you've taken to evasion, lying, moving goalposts, distraction and D-K based rants
JoePizza
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2018
Stumpy, You are a clueless imp. You never linked to any studies that refutes what I have claimed. I have asked you to make your case instead of just baldly lying about it. Like the coward that you are you have FAILed to do anything but spew your brand of TARD.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2018
@idiot illiterate creationist troll joeyPP the liar
You are a clueless imp
Projection
You never linked to any studies that refutes what I have claimed
wrong again
I referenced a paper that included Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993, Darwin 1872; Dawkins 1996; Gould 2002; Mayr 1991; Rhodes 1983 plus about 85 other studies that directly contradict your ID stupidity

that makes you a proven liar once again
I have asked you to make your case instead of just baldly lying about it
your first post to me was an attack because I dared to ask you a question

you have to be competent in the scientific method - you're not
you're also not literate, nor are you capable of accepting evidence that directly contradicts your ID beliefs

given you can't actually discuss evidence or present legitimate science as validation, then...??

you're just another fundie looking for kicks on a science site because you can't even read your own bible (JER 31)
rrwillsj
not rated yet Dec 20, 2018
After pondering the meaning, the purpose, for stuporstitious fakirs & other woomerchandisers, regularly appearing on science sites such as phys.org?

The conclusions I have leaped to (oh yeah, a leap of faith!
I am divine;y inspired!)
that they are not just simple trolls for primitive, sanguinary cults.

Rather, they appear to be a well-orchestrated campaign to extort the science sites. To constantly disrupt & sabotage the Public perception of Science.
To wear down the reader's with blatant falsehoods & disjunctive allegations of criminal conspiracy among Scientific Researchers

These trolls are excellent examples of narcissist rage because the "Daddy" Scientist ignores & disregards the woo-trolls obsessive demands that their delusions must be accepted as reality.

Those like joe & seu & ultron & all the other woomongers are fronting for the saudi Wahhabists & russian espionage.

These sad little puppets, too cowardly to look up & see who is pulling their strings!
JoePizza
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2018
Great. More blah, blah blah but no science and evidence to support the trolls' claims. No mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, which means LUCA is a non-starter.
JoePizza
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2018
So why do we observe so much similarity with life, down to the molecular level? Common design. Common design is observed with automobiles, computers, houses, buildings- just about everything human make. It would be stupid to redesign every organism from scratch including new genes for new proteins.

Linnaean classification was first based on the premise of common design.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.