This writer has never encouraged anyone to take my word for anything written in these columns on face value. This is why sources are provided with almost every article every written here except the rare commentary. Readers are wholeheartedly encouraged to read for themselves from the Bible and the books referenced.
After a recent article was posted, this exchange took place in the comment section: My article said:
“..then eventually goes further back to one single-celled plant called LUCA. “
And my critic wrote, “In a word, No. And everything you base on that erroneous claim therefore is equally incorrect.”
This writer is not claiming that all life can be traced to a single-celled plant called LUCA. This writer is merely pointing out the conventional wisdom of virtually every evolutionary biologist in the world says that evolution must eventually trace all the way back to one original life form called LUCA. It’s not my theory. It is what a large majority of evolutionary biologists are said to believe.
Logically, this life form produced by abiogenesis had to be a plant because there was nothing to eat except itself. From one single-celled organism, every form of life had to have mutated unless there is a creator God.
Rather than simply take my word for it, allow me to quote biology professor Charles Kingsley Levy from his book Evolutionary Wars. In a chapter titled “In The Beginning” a section called “How It All (Probably) Began” starts by saying, “Life is a historical process of which we have a very incomplete record, and we certainly have no record of life’s origins. Compare, for a moment, our study of life’s origins with our study of evolution of the later-living forms. We know that the history of life represents a selective sequence of events: some living organisms were successes, and their descendants are the ancestors of today’s living forms.” (pg 8)
But how do we know this? Because we have living forms today and fossils of animals that are extinct. The reason we believe that dinosaurs were either reptiles or birds (and no, it doesn’t matter which) before and after the age of the dinosaurs. In other words, they shape-shifted, became extinct but their genes survived. But that’s my interjection…let’s return to professor Levy’s expert opinion.
“But, as a 3.5 billion-year process of trial and error selected winners and losers, more forms became extinct. Life has produced many more failures than successes, and we know about many of these failures because they left fossilized remains. Unfortunately, however, the earliest failures in the transition from simple molecules to life left no trace. Nevertheless, we can look back in time and speculate about how it all began.”
On page 9 he writes, “It is believed that the first membrane-bound living organisms appeared a bit over 3.8 billion years ago as simple. microscopic bacteria-like organisms. These were the ancestors that paved the way for all the more complex forms yet to come.”
If professor Levy’s understanding of the relationship of abiogenesis to natural selection is substantially different from mine, I fail to see how.