Separatists view, over shadowing Darwinism by a ventured hypothesis
of the last Universal common ancestor theory. A 20 century portal inside look
of genetics and its origin of one common law. However Darwin was not the first
to speculate on this theory. It gained momentum back in the 70’s that became a
new approach to DNA. However as mentioned earlier, this hypothesis was challenged
back in the 30’s by scientist that took the challenge to form life or make life
from all known sequences known for life and failed. The conclusion was that,
there had to be a greater being to have formed life. Hence LUCA. The precognizant
forming from nothing to something by millions of years of nothing is unproven.
Not only does this not hold value to a creationist, but
makes few common sense to science. In order to understand the complexities of
genetics, biology to the common person, you would need to view all aspects of
that debate. Those that suggest the big bang theory understandably refer to
existence. While it merits a separate conclusion the illustration is
understandable. There would be no correlation to LUCA if it had no value to its
beginning.
Many scientist have refuted this theory of shared one common
cell. The inference would then suggest that inherited modern genetics would
still be thriving in modern time. Hence we be seeing the same distinction of
yesterday, today. The biggest problem with evolution that it hasn’t factually
confirmed is life itself. Not the mechanics of it as subscribed by evolution? But
by its mere introduction.
That would mean if correct, formations would have been
included in other spheres other than just one, earth. Since LUCA is specific to
one common law, this entire galaxy and beyond would be thriving with life. LUCA
would not have the ability to pick and choose its evolution, it would just be.
While the big bang theory is now being challenged upon its
introduction, biology continues to forge ahead with new discoveries, other than
life itself. The paradox would show that everything would have bilateral life,
such as animals, vegetation, air, water, and therefore would hold the same
value to man.
Example would be, kicking a tree, it has feelings and you
hurt it. Therefore you should be tried as a criminal. Same Value. Another example
is: I see it so therefore it is, a stipulation that it has always been there
because you are unaware of it being moved.
For in-depth solution to these theories, you must look at
the works of: Craig Venter, Henry Morris, Richard Dawkins, Sydney Altman, Lee
Hartwell, and Paul Davis, so forth and so on. I personally enjoyed the great
debate of 2011, however, the principle holds, life without creation is
meaningless unless otherwise proven. So far zero.
So to a theist? The value, plus origin, equals unknown.
However nothing ventured, nothing gained as it were.
