Article <vmj2hp$29is6$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vmj2hp$29is6$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Snappy zero to hero
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:34:31 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vmj2hp$29is6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vmf8ir$i7i6$1@dont-email.me> <vmgfsu$tc25$1@dont-email.me>
 <vmhqgj$1bc1j$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="48698"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:exGqEAaKBYf+1/nhPeonjQuZjHU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vmhqgj$1bc1j$1@dont-email.me>
	FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org

On 1/18/2025 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
> On 19/01/2025 2:03 am, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/17/2025 9:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> "Here we infer that LUCA lived ~4.2 Ga (4.09–4.33 Ga) through 
>>> divergence time analysis of pre-LUCA gene duplicates, calibrated 
>>> using microbial fossils and isotope records under a new cross-bracing 
>>> implementation. Phylogenetic reconciliation suggests that LUCA had a 
>>> genome of at least 2.5 Mb (2.49–2.99 Mb), encoding around 2,600 
>>> proteins, comparable to modern prokaryotes."
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
>>>
>>> Early earth able to support life 4.3-4.4 Ga?
>>>
>>> This would give a time frame for the evolution from the origin of 
>>> life to LUCA of a few hundred million years at most, i.e. zero to 
>>> 2,500,000 base pairs encoding around 2,600 proteins.
>>>
>>> Not enough time?
>>> Not the rate predicted by evolutionary theory?
>>> Or all good?
>>>
>> I put up this article last year when it was first published.  What you 
>> should be worried about is that the origin of life is definitely not 
>> Biblical.  You seem to be worshiping the wrong god, or is the one 
>> responsible for the origin of life the pretender god?  Maybe the Bible 
>> is just wrong about everything that we can determine about nature.  
>> You are the one that needs to decide how you are going to deal with 
>> reality.
>>
>> The paper does admit that their results would indicate that there 
>> would only be a couple hundred million years for life to evolve on 
>> this planet, but there is the option that it first evolved somewhere 
>> else like Mars.  Look at Figure 1.  That could also explain why only 
>> two lineages (archaea, and eubacteria) survived, and why it looks like 
>> it took a billion years before those two lineages started to diversify 
>> on earth.
>>
>> If life did not get to earth before 3.2 billion years ago that would 
>> explain the lack of diversification  within Archaea and bacteria.
>>
>> The alternaitive is that LUCA existed over 4.2 billion years ago. 
>> Diversification occurred for over a billion years, but sometime around 
>> 3.2 billion years there was a mass extinction event and only one 
>> lineage of Archaea and one lineage of eubacteria survived to diversify 
>> after the mass extinction event.
>>
>> Neither scenario is Biblical even if you claim that some designer 
>> created Archaea and eubacteria 3.2 billion years ago in a way that 
>> makes it look like their common ancestor existed for a billion years 
>> before they existed.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
> 
> Thanks Ron for the summary; interesting science and process of 
> deduction. As far as compatibility with biblical theology goes, does not 
> an old earth interpretation allow for this? Personally, my reading of 
> the science is old earth with significant interventions re life. YMMV.
> 
> Btw, is this you? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ronald-Okimoto-3

The old earth interpretations try to account for the origin of life by 
claiming that the Bible doesn't say anything about how life arose on 
this planet.  They have to lie in order to reinterpret what is written 
in the Bible.  The Bible is pretty clear as to how life was created on 
this planet.  Land plants, including agricultural crop plants were 
created on the third day (period of time for old earth creationists). 
The sun and moon, and the sea creatures were created on the fourth day 
or period of time.  This is inconsistent with how life arose on this 
planet.  We know that sea creatures including vertebrates were created 
long before land plants evolved from fresh water algae, and that dinos 
were walking around before angiosperms (flowering crop plants) evolved.

The Reason to Believe old earth creationists used to claim to be IDiots, 
but they claimed that they did not want to teach the junk in the public 
schools.  They only wanted to use the fraud of ID science to support 
their Biblical beliefs.  After the Top Six came out in 2017 they seemed 
to have stopped being IDiots, and you would be hard pressed to find any 
indication that they were once supporters of the ID scam.  They no 
longer mention it on their home page, and when I searched "Intelligent 
Design" on their web page you don't come up with many of their old 
papers on the subject.

Any science confirming the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy would not 
be Biblical.  It would be just more science to deny.  The Reason to 
Believe creationistss still want land plants to be created before sea 
creatures.  Not only that, but they have some weird interpretation of 
some other part of the Bible (not Genesis) where they claim that whales 
were created with those first sea creatures.  They deny that terrestial 
mammals had to have existed before whales evolved.

This is the type of denial that has to exist to try to fit the Biblical 
interpretations into what reality actually is.

I never maintained that researchgate page.  I recall that I may have 
signed up years ago because a research associate wanted me to.  I do not 
recall ever going to it before I clicked on your link, and it isn't 
accurate.  I wouldn't know how to fix that page.  I retired from 
Cobb-Vantress last year.

I try to delete the papers that I haven't been associated with on the 
Google Scholars page, and it may not list all my publications.  I've 
never tried to add anything to it, just delete the papers that aren't mine.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=QP5FNzgAAAAJ

Since I no longer have the Cobb-Vantress email I probably no longer have 
access to that Google Scholar page.  I was able to edit affiliation to 
"Retired" but I can't seem to change the verified email address.

Ron Okimoto