The hypothesis of a Last Universal Ancestor remains unproven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor
The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era). The earliest evidence for life on Earth is biogenic graphite found in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[4] and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia. A study in 2015 found potentially biogenic carbon from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia. Such findings would indicate the existence of different conditions on Earth during that period than what is generally assumed today and point to an earlier origination of life.
...the LUA is thought to have been a small, single-cell organism. It likely had a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria. Morphologically, it would likely not have been exceptionally distinctive among a collection of generalized, small-size, modern-day bacteria. However, Carl Woese et al, who first proposed the currently-used three domain system based on an analysis of the 16S rRNA sequences of bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes, stated that the LUA would have been a "...simpler, more rudimentary entity than the individual ancestors that spawned the three [domains] (and their descendants)" regarding its genetic machinery.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in which he twice stated the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms. In the summation he states, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." The very last sentence is a restatement of the hypothesis: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."
In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life," a formal test of universal common ancestry was published. The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer. While the formal test overwhelmingly favored the existence of a single LUA, this does not imply that the LUA was ever alone. Instead, it was a member of the early microbial community.
However, in their quest to find LUA, they decided that Archaea would be a most probable acceptance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea
Archaea were initially classified as bacteria, receiving the name archaebacteria (in the Archaebacteria kingdom), but this classification is outdated.
Archaea reproduce asexually by binary fission, fragmentation, or budding; unlike bacteria and eukaryotes, no known species forms spores.
Archaea were initially viewed as extremophiles living in harsh environments, such as hot springs and salt lakes, but they have since been found in a broad range of habitats, including soils, oceans, marshlands and the human colon, oral cavity, and skin.[5] Archaea are particularly numerous in the oceans, and the archaea in plankton may be one of the most abundant groups of organisms on the planet.
So a single-celled microorganisms split itself to produce two or more different kinds of species.
Did not.
Concept of species
The classification of archaea into species is also controversial. Biology defines a species as a group of related organisms. The familiar exclusive breeding criterion (organisms that can breed with each other but not with others) is of no help here because archaea reproduce asexually.
The ARMAN are a new group of archaea recently discovered in acid mine drainage.
Archaea show high levels of horizontal gene transfer between lineages. Some researchers suggest that individuals can be grouped into species-like populations given highly similar genomes and infrequent gene transfer to/from cells with less-related genomes, as in the genus Ferroplasma. On the other hand, studies in Halorubrum found significant genetic transfer to/from less-related populations, limiting the criterion's applicability. A second concern is to what extent such species designations have practical meaning.
Current knowledge on genetic diversity is fragmentary and the total number of archaeal species cannot be estimated with any accuracy. Estimates of the number of phyla range from 18 to 23, of which only 8 have representatives that have been cultured and studied directly. Many of these hypothesized groups are known from a single rRNA sequence, indicating that the diversity among these organisms remains obscure. The Bacteria also contain many uncultured microbes with similar implications for characterization.
Here too is a gap they want us to fill in.
From a single-celled microorganisms to multi-celled organisms which depend on minerals to survive.
So these scientists believe in miracles after all.
And you guys still don't want to admit that it's an anti-God religion, based on blind baseless faith.
For example, look at this idiotic reasoning, and absurd conclusion.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -ancestor/
Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor"versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.
The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.
Honestly, I suggest he should have ran a test on his brain - no joke - to see what it is, inside his head.
What manner of brain could produce such a conclusion?
Today, when any species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life produce offspring/seed, what do they produce?
A species of the same kind.
If particular species of any one of the three main groups, or "domains," of life mate, what do they produce?
A species of the same kind with different charateristics.
For example, the ridiculous Liger (crazy idea from crazy minds - poor creatures).
You can graft two plants to get another of the same kind with different charateristics.
Everything produces according to its kind.
Everything has its own material makeup.
That's how life was designed.
What else do they expect to find?
Try mating an animal with a plant. What do you get?
Unbelievable.
The more information I look at on this subject is just leaving me in more and more disbelief.
And to see that these are men with PHDs and the like.
I just have to repeat (so that I don't lose my sanity)
Romans 1:21-23
...but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.
Ah...
Sanity...
How much I give thanks for these words of wisdom. Ah... how refreshing indeed.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
The origin of life is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.
Life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals.
Proven? - No.
Reasonable? - No.
Logical? - No.
Life originated from an intelligent creator.
Proven? - No.
Reasonable? - Yes.
Logical? - Yes.
Now.
Here is a challenge to you guys.
A little quote mining wouldn't hurt in this case, I suppose, since it's from your team.
Hermann Joseph Muller
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
Kenneth R. Miller
evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science.
Ernst Mayr observed
The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. How else except by the word evolution can we designate the sequence of faunas and floras in precisely dated geological strata? And evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.
Using the quotes of these guys...
I am designer.
If someone gave you one of my designs, would you be able to prove whether I did it or not?
I would say no. N O.
Even if you asked the one who gave you.
Even if you asked me.
Even if you asked those who saw me do it.
That's the only facts/evidence you have, and it's up to you to accept it, or not.
There is another option you have...
You could say nobody designed it. The materials just came together in some unexplained fashion - and voil !
So crystal clear, as pure water in an untarnished glass, is the fact that I am responsible for this design, that for anyone to disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence.
I will go as far as to say that if I am not the designer then you are not reading these words.
The universe, as well as all within it, bear evidence of a designer.
I go so far as to say that the evidence for creation being a fact, is so abundant, that for one to deny it, is to accept that nothing is real - including us.
The challenge to you...
Prove to me that the universe, and all within it, was not created/designed by someone.
