|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Spur-Man |
|
Post Content
|
...
Yes, it doesn't explain how life originated, nor is it supposed to. What I mean is that it explains why lifeforms are the way they appear in the present. It explains why every organism we discover fits into a single nested hierarchy, with a time frame, and pattern of divergence that looks exactly like a big family tree.
Quoting: Spur-Man [ link to www.nature.com (secure)] Was the universal common ancestry proved? Takahiro Yonezawa & Masami Hasegawa Nature volume 468, page E9 (16 December 2010) | Download Citation Abstract Arising from D. L. Theobald Nature 465, 219–222 (2010)10.1038/nature09014; Theobald reply The question of whether or not all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor has been a central problem of evolutionary biology since Darwin1. Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences. Theobald2 recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald2 is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life, despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection3 giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses. What's your point? I often consider that there may have been multiple abiogenesis events, and that these separate lines exchanged genes horizontally. "Theobald2 recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds."It doesn't say that it doesn't hold, it says it doesn't reject other hypotheses It says that the UCA (universal common ancestor) hypothesis holds after comparing gene sequences across different domains of life. However, this isn't sufficient to rule out separate origins entirely for the three domains. This was nearly 9 years ago. Again, what is your point?
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
