4 ms·

And the answer gave such certainty to what ancient life would be like that my hypotheticals should be able to be answered (in the same context) with just as muc

And the answer gave such certainty to what ancient life would be like that my hypotheticals should be able to be answered (in the same context) with just as much certainty. It's trivial to apply my hypotheticals to models in which life didn't all descend from a common ancestor.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
> It's trivial to apply my hypotheticals to models in which life didn't all descend from a common ancestor We don't have such a thing to our knowledge so it's not trivial. If you still feel it is, do the application yourself - it's trivial after all.
- not_alexb 3y ago
  I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You can arbitrarily create models of earth life that didn't have a common ancestor via "my" hypotheticals which are just as valid as univeral common ancestor (which predominantly features: there is something common in all life, so all life must have came from the same place; obviously this is a gross oversimplification but that's what we're dealing with in the answer)
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    > You can arbitrarily create models of earth life that didn't have a common ancestor I'm finding it very difficult to understand what you mean by "models of life". Actually I have no idea. What does this phrase even mean?
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
You're invoking god and magic (i.e. sufficiently implausible coincidence and sufficiently advanced technology). Yes, god and magic can render most descriptions of how the universe operates inadequate.
- not_alexb 3y ago
  I am absolutely not. There are lines I didn't draw for the sake of time. Re: think about how you could translate my hypotheticals into how nature could do that on its own (obviously over a much longer course of time and fortuitous conditions).
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    1) I presumed that the person you originally replied to was speaking of terrestrial life when they wrote "all life". 2) There are thoughts that life on Earth, presuming it started on Earth and wasn't seeded from meteorites, may have started from multiple populations. But it's presumed that if it did so those multiple populations were either out-competed by one population, or sufficiently alike that they effectively merged in their descendants. At any rate, at this point, all life that we have so far detected shares similar enough features to presume a common origin. This includes incredibly separate lineages such as the bacteria and archaea. Would you consider modern computers to be descended from IBM mainframes? Someone building a duplicate lifeform from parts based on existing knowledge and existing lifeforms does not negate that those existing lifeforms evolved into form since the beginning of terrestrial life. Your work is standing on preexisting evolutionary knowledge, processes, and a chain of life, even if it technically replaces biological reproduction with a human engineer. From a dialectical point of view you're effectively invoking god to nitpick. If you believe you aren't you're going to have to spell it out for me.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

> It's trivial to apply my hypotheticals to models in which life didn't all descend from a common ancestor We don't have such a thing to our knowledge so it's not trivial. If you still feel it is, do the application yourself - it's trivial after all.

not_alexb 3y ago
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You can arbitrarily create models of earth life that didn't have a common ancestor via "my" hypotheticals which are just as valid as univeral common ancestor (which predominantly features: there is something common in all life, so all life must have came from the same place; obviously this is a gross oversimplification but that's what we're dealing with in the answer)
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > You can arbitrarily create models of earth life that didn't have a common ancestor I'm finding it very difficult to understand what you mean by "models of life". Actually I have no idea. What does this phrase even mean?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

You're invoking god and magic (i.e. sufficiently implausible coincidence and sufficiently advanced technology). Yes, god and magic can render most descriptions of how the universe operates inadequate.

not_alexb 3y ago
I am absolutely not. There are lines I didn't draw for the sake of time. Re: think about how you could translate my hypotheticals into how nature could do that on its own (obviously over a much longer course of time and fortuitous conditions).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  1) I presumed that the person you originally replied to was speaking of terrestrial life when they wrote "all life". 2) There are thoughts that life on Earth, presuming it started on Earth and wasn't seeded from meteorites, may have started from multiple populations. But it's presumed that if it did so those multiple populations were either out-competed by one population, or sufficiently alike that they effectively merged in their descendants. At any rate, at this point, all life that we have so far detected shares similar enough features to presume a common origin. This includes incredibly separate lineages such as the bacteria and archaea. Would you consider modern computers to be descended from IBM mainframes? Someone building a duplicate lifeform from parts based on existing knowledge and existing lifeforms does not negate that those existing lifeforms evolved into form since the beginning of terrestrial life. Your work is standing on preexisting evolutionary knowledge, processes, and a chain of life, even if it technically replaces biological reproduction with a human engineer. From a dialectical point of view you're effectively invoking god to nitpick. If you believe you aren't you're going to have to spell it out for me.