Talk:Last universal common ancestor/Archives/2012/August

So...

All-of-us-are-related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.97.70 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Even you and me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

'Features' section

Offtopic: no proposals here to improve the article, as required by WP:TALK. Just another Soapbox speech.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why in the features section does it say Based on the properties currently shared by all independently living organisms on Earth, it is possible to deduce the defining features of the LUCA. And then makes a list of the properties of every living thing on the planet? Jinx69 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Because if they weren't listed, people reading the article wouldn't know what they were? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC) And what is your point, Jinx69? Besides pushing your agenda of trying to edit articles to cast unreasonable doubt on science under the guise of a "neutral point of view," that is.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Because it makes it sound to the laymen who gets on wikipedia after work one day that somesort of empricial insight can be obtained as to primoridal life on earth, when really it is just rattling off the list of features of every living thing on the planet. The laymen sees the biochemistry nomenclature and perceives it as a 'scientific fact' that the LUCA "from which all organisms now living on Earth descend" has a foundation of empirical science-this is deceptive. Obtaining empirical insight into the LUCA is IMPOSSIBLE and so mixing it with fact (biology of every living thing on the planet) is very very deceptive to the layman. Jinx69 (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) What is your proposed improvement, then? Delete the entire article and replace it with "The Last Universal Ancestor is a science myth because User Jinx69 insists there is no evidence for it"? Simply because you refuse to understand how science works and refuse to understand how science can be communicated because you're too busy crusading for your anti-evolution agenda does not magically mean that it is magically impossible to obtain empirical insight into the LUCA. If you're not going to make any actual suggestions to improve the page, as opposed to rewriting it to fit with an anti-evolution agenda under the disguise of a "neutral point of view," please stop using the talkpages as soapboxes.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, rattling off a list of features found in every organism on this planet is the way to deduce the defining features of LCUA. The only feature that can be added to that list that is not a feature of every living thing is that it must have been a "bacterium" (in the vernacular sense). Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)