So, apparently all shadows of doubt have been removed from the quest to confirm that we all descend from a single common ancestor of the single-cellular-puddle-of-muck kind! Well this is an awful big assertion, and should be huge news! However, knowing how often the popular science media manipulates their evolution article titles (saying something completely different within the actual article) I did something novel and...read the article. About halfway through, I find what I figured I was going to find. A crapload of circular reasoning. It turns out that "Theobald's study rests on several simple assumptions about how the diversity of modern proteins arose." Woah, wait....? This glaringly vehement pronouncement rests on a few key assumptions!??!? Well let's see what these are.
First, he assumed that genetic copies of a protein can be multiplied during reproduction, such as when one parent gives a copy of one of their genes to several of their children. Second, he assumed that a process of replication and mutation over the eons may modify these proteins from their ancestral versions. These two factors, then, should have created the differences in the modern versions of these proteins we see throughout life today. Lastly, he assumed that genetic changes in one species don't affect mutations in another species -- for example, genetic mutations in kangaroos don't affect those in humans.
So basically, he assumes that it is a process of evolution controlled by the mechanism of natural selection that has led to the vast diversity we see today, and then constructs a test to see how what he is trying to prove happened.........um.........So he assumes universal common ancestry (UCA) through slight mutations and then formulates an experiment to run around those assumptions. He's certainly claiming an awful lot based on some pretty sketchy assumptions.
The article continues:
But do the processes in these assumptions link humans to other animals? Do these processes link animals to other eukaryotes? Do these processes link eukaryotes to the other domains of life, bacteria and archaea? The answer to each of these questions turns out to be a resounding yes.It does? Really? Could you tell me how we came to the assumptions that the rest of this study (which I'm sure used my tax dollars) is founded upon, and would collapse without? How do we know that "a process of replication and mutation over the eons may modify these proteins from their ancestral version"? Furthermore, the article doesn't tell us how this study shows us that UCA is so plausible a conclusion. It just says that Theobald did some study that proves UCA, believe us you stupid idiots.
I'm sorry, it take a bit more than an emphatic assertion to convince me. The title just shows the blatant dishonesty of the science media when dealing with this issue. It's provocative but presumptuous. How about a study that isn't based on such blatant question begging?