Last Universal Common Ancestor

[Cancel 1 2023]

LUCA is a strong scientific inference based on three decades of genetic analysis.

If you have a plausible alternative hypothesis, then submit your data and analysis to a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal, like the LUCA authors did.

Do you always switch over to your Doc Dutch sock so you can give your posts "Thanks"?

 

[IBDaMann]

It's a concept related to genetics.

Nope. It's a religious belief that your clergy are omniscient. Why do you believe that anyone can tell what happened in the unobserved, distant past.

So presumably you doubt all of geology, too, right?

I don't doubt geology. I don't doubt any science. Unlike you, I do not ascribe to geology the ability to make anyone omniscient. Why do you treat geology as a superpower?

Might as well just dump ALL of science, too.

Nope. I will keep the science and reject your religion. Too easy.

 

[IBDaMann]

LUCA is a strong scientific inference based on three decades of genetic analysis.

1. You are extremely gullible for believing this
2. There is no such thing as a "scientific" inference. The word for what you are describing is SPECULATION, and nobody's speculation is any more accurate than anyone else's because nobody has a time machine to enable any SPECULATION to be verified.
3. We humans have been studying many things for more than three decades and yet nobody can go back in time and verify any past, unobserved event.
4. No genetic analysis can tell you where anyone was at any point.

If you have a plausible alternative hypothesis,

Oooops, you are pivoting. The topic is your claim of omniscience, i.e. of knowing what specific events occurred, and presenting it as SCIENCE rather than honestly presenting your SPECULATION as just a theory.

Do the honest thing and rewrite the opening post to remove all implications that there is any science involved, and that this theory is just your SPECULATION. Then invite people to comment on your SPECULATION.

then submit your data and analysis to a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal,

There is no such thing as a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal, just as there is no such thing as a prestigious tabloid.

You shouldn't be this gullible; you shouldn't need to have all this explained to you.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Nope. It's a religious belief that your clergy are omniscient. Why do you believe that anyone can tell what happened in the unobserved, distant past.


I don't doubt geology.

Why? The same reasoning is used. You can't throw out one without throwing out the other.

I don't doubt any science.

Clearly you doubt genetics.

Nope. I will keep the science and reject your religion. Too easy.

It is extremely unlikely you know what you are accepting or rejecting.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why? The same reasoning is used.

Nope. The science of geology is not the same "reasoning" as your religious beliefs of omniscience about events of the unobserved, distant past.

You can't throw out one without throwing out the other.

Watch me. I totally reject your religion ... while simultaneously accepting all science. There. Done.

Clearly you doubt genetics.

Nope. I'll be the judge of what I accept and what I reject. I accept all genetics models. There. Done.

It is extremely unlikely you know what you are accepting or rejecting.

Probability has nothing to do with it. It is with 100% that I know exactly what I am accepting and what I am rejecting.

I reject your religion.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Nope. The science of geology is not the same "reasoning" as your religious beliefs of omniscience about events of the unobserved, distant past.

Look at that sentence again. "unobserved" "distant past". That describes geology to a "T".

Watch me. I totally reject your religion ... while simultaneously accepting all science. There. Done.

Possibly because you don't seem to really understand the science.

Probability has nothing to do with it. It is with 100% that I know exactly what I am accepting and what I am rejecting.

It's always a matter of "probability". You just don't seem to know that.

I reject your religion.

Why do you call geology a "religion" when you just told me you accept it?

 

[IBDaMann]

Look at that sentence again. "unobserved" "distant past". That describes geology to a "T".

Nope. That describes your religion to a "T", a religion that you happen to be inappropriately calling "geology."

Science predicts nature, ergo, it looks forward into the future. Science has nothing to say about the past. That is the sole dominion of speculation and religious belief.

Oh, by the way, geology does not speak to the past, distant or otherwise. Only religions, such as yours, hold that geologists somehow have the miraculous superpower of omniscience.

Possibly because you don't seem to really understand the science.

I understand geology. You are the one who cannot provide any science for your religious beliefs, and thus you are trying desperately to shift the topic away from you and onto me.

If you ever want to go toe-to-toe with me on geology, bring it on. If you ever want to provide geological support for your religious beliefs, that would be even better. I'm standing by.

Why do you call geology a "religion" when you just told me you accept it?

Why do you call your WACKY religion "geology" when you just demonstrated that you are totally scientifically illiterate?

Oh, you never addressed the graph:

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Nope. That describes your religion to a "T", a religion that you happen to be inappropriately calling "geology."

Science predicts nature, ergo, it looks forward into the future. Science has nothing to say about the past. That is the sole dominion of speculation and religious belief.

Oh, by the way, geology does not speak to the past, distant or otherwise. Only religions, such as yours, hold that geologists somehow have the miraculous superpower of omniscience.


I understand geology. You are the one who cannot provide any science for your religious beliefs, and thus you are trying desperately to shift the topic away from you and onto me.

If you ever want to go toe-to-toe with me on geology, bring it on. If you ever want to provide geological support for your religious beliefs, that would be even better. I'm standing by.



Why do you call your WACKY religion "geology" when you just demonstrated that you are totally scientifically illiterate?

Oh, you never addressed the graph:

where did you get that graph?

 

[IBDaMann]

where did you get that graph?

I don't recall you concerning yourself with any of the critical details for any of the graphs you have posted. You simply pointed to the graphs as the reason why others should believe something. Now I am pointing to this graph and asking you what you think of it. Feel free to send an email to library.reference.noaa.gov

... or should I demand the same information from you regarding the graphs you posted? Do we need to back up and scrutinize your graphs in the same way?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

I don't recall you concerning yourself with any of the critical details for any of the graphs you have posted.

I said I got it from the IPCC.

You simply pointed to the graphs as the reason why others should believe something. Now I am pointing to this graph and asking you what you think of it. Feel free to send an email to library.reference.noaa.gov

Where on NOAA did you get that? Genuinely curious because I get 100% that it doesn't say what you think it does.

Just source it.

... or should I demand the same information from you regarding the graphs you posted? Do we need to back up and scrutinize your graphs in the same way?[/QUOTE]

 

[IBDaMann]

I said I got it from the IPCC.

Big deal. Where did the IPCC get it? Did they have some pimply-faced highschooler make it up for $20? Where's the raw data used to make the graph? Why should any rational adult accept the graph in the first place, much less any conclusions that someone claims stem from the graph?

Where on NOAA did you get that?

Just send an email to library.reference@noaa.gov and ask for the graph along with the raw data and the required detailed instrumentation analysis.

Genuinely curious because I get 100% that it doesn't say what you think it does.

Great. That is what I am asking, i.e. "What do you think of the graph?" It's an easy question, I don't know why you are fighting tooth and nail to avoid answering. In fact, I don't know why you haven't answered already, which you could have done in conjunction with your other questions and comments.

By the way, I see that I was mistaken and you apparently can read people's minds. Congratulations are in order. So, what do I think the graph says?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

"What do you think of the graph?"

It looks suspicious. The pixelation looks like it was grabbed second or third hand (open to manipulation). And if it is, indeed, a GEOS satelite data set I suspect it isn't a global data set. NASA itself SAYS THE EARTH IS WARMING.

Here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


It doesn't show an overall cooling by ANY stretch of the imagination. Which means the graph YOU are showing (without any real background) says the exact opposite of what NASA itself says. And the MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY other graphs which show warming.

In fact NASA does NOT say the earth is cooling.

So what does your graph tell YOU?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yeah, this graph is pretty meaningless. It is what is called "windowed" data. That means it selects a VERY NARROW timeframe covering less than 2 years. Also, usually NASA and other scientists refer to the Y-axis as "Temperature Anomaly" and give the units. In other words: this doesn't look like it tells much, certainly doesn't look like a professionally produced graph from NASA.

If you go to NASA here's what they think the earth's temperature is actually doing:

Note that the data is labeled "Temperature Anomaly (oC)"? Yeah, that's what the Y-axis is. Also note that it covers a much larger time frame. Even within that there are ups and downs.

So I wouldn't put too much into your graph. It doesn't look like anything meaningful.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If you have a plausible alternative hypothesis, then submit your data and analysis to a prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal, like the LUCA authors did.

Motto of Postmodern Science: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"

He should make sure it appeals to the academented reviewers' StarTrek-struck escapist fantasies about science.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It looks suspicious. The pixelation looks like it was grabbed second or third hand (open to manipulation). And if it is, indeed, a GEOS satelite data set I suspect it isn't a global data set. NASA itself SAYS THE EARTH IS WARMING.

Here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


It doesn't show an overall cooling by ANY stretch of the imagination. Which means the graph YOU are showing (without any real background) says the exact opposite of what NASA itself says. And the MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY other graphs which show warming.

In fact NASA does NOT say the earth is cooling.

So what does your graph tell YOU?

NA$A Profits From the Warmalarmie Scam

 

[IBDaMann]

It looks suspicious. The pixelation looks like it was grabbed second or third hand

Yes. It was received as an image extracted from an Adobe PDF that was then automatically resized online. The appearance doesn't matter.

And if it is, indeed, a GEOS satelite data set I suspect it isn't a global data set.

So you would demand to see the raw data, yes? ... to confirm that the data in question is a valid, global dataset, yes? You would neither accept nor present any graph that wasn't accompanied by such a requisite dataset, right?

NASA itself SAYS THE EARTH IS WARMING.

Big deal, what does the FBI say? What does HUD say? Why worship one government bureaucracy over any other? If you think they have any science supporting their propaganda, you should post it, right?

Personally, I don't accept propaganda from any government agency. I only accept science, or valid datasets, and not anyone's opinion ... even if it is a government organization announcing what its politically-appointed leaders feel like saying (but under the pretense that it is the agency somehow speaking).

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

There's no data at the other end of that link. Get back to me when you have the raw data of a valid dataset. And don't be so gullible to fall for graphs that the government puts on their websites that are not the graphs that the actual government employees discuss in their meetings.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you go to NASA here's what they think the earth's temperature is actually doing:

Incorrect. You posted what NASA puts on their website. This isn't what you would get if you were to go to NASA, it's what you get if you go to the internet. If you go to NASA, you get something else entirely.

 

[IBDaMann]

"Use It or Lose It" Is the Iron Law of Evolution

Nope. Explain the human appendix and tailbone.

The iron claw of evolution is "Get your genes into the next generation or it's over."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Nope. Explain the human appendix and tailbone.

The iron claw of evolution is "Get your genes into the next generation or it's over."

Parental Genes Don't Produce Genius. Social Darwinism Is a Doctrine for the Fatal Continuation of Hereditary Power


No more relevant to who should own the resources than the junk-DNA we're still stuck with. Besides, the appendix may have been used to nullify the radiation that was more prevalent eons ago.

 

[IBDaMann]

Parental Genes Don't Produce Genius.

Nifty slogan, but meaningless. Human parents produce human offspring. The offspring is of human intelligence ... statistically speaking, of course. The exceptions who post on this site are not considered.

Social Darwinism Is a Doctrine for the Fatal Continuation of Hereditary Power

Nifty slogan, but meaningless. Social Darwinism is an hypothesis stemming from Darwin's theory of evolution.

No more relevant to who should own the resources than the junk-DNA we're still stuck with.

With whose DNA do you believe you were stuck?

Besides, the appendix may have been used to nullify the radiation that was more prevalent eons ago.

1. Why should any rational adult believe any speculation about eons-old radiance prevalence?
2. Do you acknowledge that the appendix is not used today?