tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7074987042840742340..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Stopgap AdamRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13410422715361946602018-03-16T23:34:03.741-04:002018-03-16T23:34:03.741-04:00As a professional biologist I'd like to go on ...As a professional biologist I'd like to go on record about how wrong it is to say that, on an evolutionary view, to state that life evolved from bacteria and plants to human life is a flat out misunderstanding of phylogeny specifically with regard to what "common ancestor" means. <br /><br />Just to detail a bit, current thought is that bacteria are part of a whole different trunk in the tree of life. They are presumed to come from a ancestral organism that they share with archaea and all eukaryotes. That common ancestor would almost certainly not be classified as a bacterium just as the presumed common ancestors of chimps and humans are neither chimps nor humans. Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60089257566117923922018-03-16T22:31:18.759-04:002018-03-16T22:31:18.759-04:00Clark
"All life began with inorganic compoun...Clark<br /><br />"All life began with inorganic compounds, and then evolved from simple bacteria and plants to human life."<br /><br />Among other issues, Clark keeps taking for granted what's precisely in dispute. He keeps assuming what he needs to prove. Such as this universal "tree of life" metaphor often used by neo-Darwinists.<br /><br />Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.com