"How evolution proceeded from the origin of life to early communities at
the time of LUCA remains an open question, but the inferred age of LUCA (~4.2rCeGa) compared with the origin of the Earth and Moon suggests that
the process required A SURPRISINGLY SHORT INTERVAL OF GEOLOGIC TIME." [1]
"...the inferred ages of LUCA and the early ATP synthase duplicates seem
to imply a VERY HIGH RATE OF EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION during the earliest period of evolutionary history." [2]
These articles are recent, 2024 and 2024, and I think are part of a
trend leading to this prediction: discoveries such as "surprisingly
short time intervals" and "very high rates of evolutionary innovation"
will continue and stretch naturalistic explanations to the point of generally accepted implausibility.
_____
[1] The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on
the early Earth system
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
[2] ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 17:10:40 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
"How evolution proceeded from the origin of life to early communities at
the time of LUCA remains an open question, but the inferred age of LUCA
(~4.2rCeGa) compared with the origin of the Earth and Moon suggests that
the process required A SURPRISINGLY SHORT INTERVAL OF GEOLOGIC TIME." [1]
"...the inferred ages of LUCA and the early ATP synthase duplicates seem
to imply a VERY HIGH RATE OF EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION during the earliest
period of evolutionary history." [2]
or maybe a lot of bits were pre-formed elsewhere and delivered by
meteorites?
These articles are recent, 2024 and 2024, and I think are part of a
trend leading to this prediction: discoveries such as "surprisingly
short time intervals" and "very high rates of evolutionary innovation"
will continue and stretch naturalistic explanations to the point of
generally accepted implausibility.
Right. So Goddidit (TM), then left things to stew for a few billion years before popping back to reveal himself to one species. No, wait, he had to
pop back to invent the flagellum. But otherwise was busy elsewhere.
_____
[1] The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on
the early Earth system
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
[2] ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
On 8/13/2026 3:58 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 17:10:40 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
"How evolution proceeded from the origin of life to early communities at >>> the time of LUCA remains an open question, but the inferred age of LUCA
(~4.2rCeGa) compared with the origin of the Earth and Moon suggests that >>> the process required A SURPRISINGLY SHORT INTERVAL OF GEOLOGIC
TIME." [1]
"...the inferred ages of LUCA and the early ATP synthase duplicates seem >>> to imply a VERY HIGH RATE OF EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION during the earliest >>> period of evolutionary history." [2]
or maybe a lot of bits were pre-formed elsewhere and delivered by
meteorites?
When the paper was published that estimated that LUCA could have existed
4.2 billion years ago, I made the claim that it was evidence for Crick's notion that life could have been seeded onto the earth from elsewhere.
The reference is below, and if you go to figure 1 you will see that
there is evidence that life was seeded onto the earth around 3.2 billion years ago.-a It looks like only one lineage of Achaea and Bacteria
survived past 3.3 billion years ago.-a All lineages except for those two suffered extinction or never existed on this planet.-a They could have
come from another planet in our solar system that was amenable to the creation of life before the earth.-a Mars is thought to have had liquid water before our planet, and we have observed interstellar visitors that have higher concentrations of the elements needed to produce life and
they came from somewhere else in our galaxy.
Molecular estimates pretty much always seem to over estimate the time of divergence.-a Some claim that the estimate is always too old because of
how we have to estimate it using surviving lineages, and this is an
estimate based on the shared genes between Archaea and Bacteria, and
their estimate indicates that there is a billion years where they have
no calibration about what was happening because we do not have branching lineages during that time period.-a They have to assume that the rate of change was the same as it was after 3.2 billion years ago and that is
not a good assumption.-a The rate could have been faster or slower after what looks like a major extinction event that nearly destroyed life on
this planet.-a To imagine that so few lineages survived so that
everything could be lost except for 2 lucky lineages is nuts.-a Just
think of how many millions of clonal lineages should have existed before
the last common ancestors of Archaea (LACA) and the last common ancestor
of Bacteria (LBCA) existed around 3.2 billion years ago.
It could be explained by space aliens seeding the earth with only two
types of bacteria in order to terraform the planet.-a Both Archaea and Bacteria had chemotrophic and photosynthetic abilities (it may have been anaerobic photosynthesis).-a I made the claim that Nyikos would have been happy when the paper was first published.
Both the LACA and LBCA lineages contain evidence that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) existed at some time in the past.-a Some
intelligent designer would have had to first design LUCA, let life
evolve for some period of time before selecting the LACA and LBCA
lineages to take over the earth.
MarkE also has to deal with the data telling him that our eukaryotic
nucleus is derived from the LACA ancestral lineage, and our
mitochondrial genome is derived from the LBCA ancestral lineage.-a Plant chloroplasts are also derived from the LBCA ancestral lineage.-a This
means that eukaryotes evolved from within the Archaea, and managed to
trap Bacteria to do the heavy lifting for the cell over a billion years
ago around 2 billion years after the LACA existed.
This just means that his designer was very busy for billions of years.
He can't just lie to himself about one aspect of the research and ignore everything else that the research tells him.-a MarkE doesn't even want
life to have existed 4.2 billion years ago.-a Life arose during the 3rd
day or period of time when plants were created on the first continents.
He doesn't agree with the Reason to Believe exIDiots that claim that
life arose early in the existence of our planet before the continental
land masses that existed during the 3rd period of time.-a The Reason to Believe old earth creationists still want land plants to be created
during the 3rd period of time, but they understand that life had been evolving on this planet for billions of years before the 3rd period of time.-a Land plants like moss did not exist until around 400 million
years ago, and the ancestors of the angiosperm plants described in the
Bible did not evolve until around 180 million years ago with the grasses (grain plants) not evolving until around 80 million years ago.-a Nature isn't Biblical.-a That is what this research should tell MarkE, but he
can't deal honestly with reality.
Ron Okimoto
These articles are recent, 2024 and 2024, and I think are part of a
trend leading to this prediction: discoveries such as "surprisingly
short time intervals" and "very high rates of evolutionary innovation"
will continue and stretch naturalistic explanations to the point of
generally accepted implausibility.
Right. So Goddidit (TM), then left things to stew for a few billion years
before popping back to reveal himself to one species. No, wait, he had to
pop back to invent the flagellum. But otherwise was busy elsewhere.
_____
[1] The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on
the early Earth system
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
[2] ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
On 8/13/2026 11:00 AM, RonO wrote:
On 8/13/2026 3:58 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 17:10:40 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
"How evolution proceeded from the origin of life to early
communities at
the time of LUCA remains an open question, but the inferred age of LUCA >>>> (~4.2rCeGa) compared with the origin of the Earth and Moon suggests that >>>> the process required A SURPRISINGLY SHORT INTERVAL OF GEOLOGIC
TIME." [1]
"...the inferred ages of LUCA and the early ATP synthase duplicates
seem
to imply a VERY HIGH RATE OF EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION during the
earliest
period of evolutionary history." [2]
or maybe a lot of bits were pre-formed elsewhere and delivered by
meteorites?
When the paper was published that estimated that LUCA could have
existed 4.2 billion years ago, I made the claim that it was evidence
for Crick's notion that life could have been seeded onto the earth
from elsewhere. The reference is below, and if you go to figure 1 you
will see that there is evidence that life was seeded onto the earth
around 3.2 billion years ago.-a It looks like only one lineage of
Achaea and Bacteria survived past 3.3 billion years ago.-a All lineages
except for those two suffered extinction or never existed on this
planet.-a They could have come from another planet in our solar system
that was amenable to the creation of life before the earth.-a Mars is
thought to have had liquid water before our planet, and we have
observed interstellar visitors that have higher concentrations of the
elements needed to produce life and they came from somewhere else in
our galaxy.
Molecular estimates pretty much always seem to over estimate the time
of divergence.-a Some claim that the estimate is always too old because
of how we have to estimate it using surviving lineages, and this is an
estimate based on the shared genes between Archaea and Bacteria, and
their estimate indicates that there is a billion years where they have
no calibration about what was happening because we do not have
branching lineages during that time period.-a They have to assume that
the rate of change was the same as it was after 3.2 billion years ago
and that is not a good assumption.-a The rate could have been faster or
slower after what looks like a major extinction event that nearly
destroyed life on this planet.-a To imagine that so few lineages
survived so that everything could be lost except for 2 lucky lineages
is nuts.-a Just think of how many millions of clonal lineages should
have existed before the last common ancestors of Archaea (LACA) and
the last common ancestor of Bacteria (LBCA) existed around 3.2 billion
years ago.
It could be explained by space aliens seeding the earth with only two
types of bacteria in order to terraform the planet.-a Both Archaea and
Bacteria had chemotrophic and photosynthetic abilities (it may have
been anaerobic photosynthesis).-a I made the claim that Nyikos would
have been happy when the paper was first published.
Both the LACA and LBCA lineages contain evidence that the last
universal common ancestor (LUCA) existed at some time in the past.
Some intelligent designer would have had to first design LUCA, let
life evolve for some period of time before selecting the LACA and LBCA
lineages to take over the earth.
MarkE also has to deal with the data telling him that our eukaryotic
nucleus is derived from the LACA ancestral lineage, and our
mitochondrial genome is derived from the LBCA ancestral lineage.
Plant chloroplasts are also derived from the LBCA ancestral lineage.
This means that eukaryotes evolved from within the Archaea, and
managed to trap Bacteria to do the heavy lifting for the cell over a
billion years ago around 2 billion years after the LACA existed.
This just means that his designer was very busy for billions of years.
He can't just lie to himself about one aspect of the research and
ignore everything else that the research tells him.-a MarkE doesn't
even want life to have existed 4.2 billion years ago.-a Life arose
during the 3rd day or period of time when plants were created on the
first continents. He doesn't agree with the Reason to Believe exIDiots
that claim that life arose early in the existence of our planet before
the continental land masses that existed during the 3rd period of
time.-a The Reason to Believe old earth creationists still want land
plants to be created during the 3rd period of time, but they
understand that life had been evolving on this planet for billions of
years before the 3rd period of time.-a Land plants like moss did not
exist until around 400 million years ago, and the ancestors of the
angiosperm plants described in the Bible did not evolve until around
180 million years ago with the grasses (grain plants) not evolving
until around 80 million years ago.-a Nature isn't Biblical.-a That is
what this research should tell MarkE, but he can't deal honestly with
reality.
Ron Okimoto
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2408721121
The survival of only a single lineage of Archaea and Bacteria surviving
past 3.2 billion years ago could be evidence that life came from
somewhere else, and only two types of bacteria were seeded onto the
planet, but the evidence exists that phototrophes and chemotrophes were already common around this time period.-a This PNAS paper claims that a large meteorite (37-58 km in diameter and could have been 200 times
larger than the one that killed off the dinos) hit the earth 3.26
billion years ago.-a The article claims that the impact would have
destroyed shallow water phototrophic bacteria, but deep water bacteria
would have survived.-a They also claim that it looks like life quickly rebounded, but the current phylogeny would indicated that life was
teetering on the edge for several hundred million years before multiple lineages would coexist and leave extant descendants.-a It is crazy to
deal with the fact that only one lineage of Archaea and Bacteria
survived that event around 3.2 billion years ago to leave extant descendants.
Ron Okimoto
These articles are recent, 2024 and 2024, and I think are part of a
trend leading to this prediction: discoveries such as "surprisingly
short time intervals" and "very high rates of evolutionary innovation" >>>> will continue and stretch naturalistic explanations to the point of
generally accepted implausibility.
Right. So Goddidit (TM), then left things to stew for a few billion
years
before popping back to reveal himself to one species. No, wait, he
had to
pop back to invent the flagellum. But otherwise was busy elsewhere.
_____
[1] The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on >>>> the early Earth system
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
[2] ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 55:01:19 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,444 |