"The ancestor of all living things….."

[nmblum88]

FWI;

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


NMB

[nmblum88]

FWI;

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


NMB

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

you really should add a statement or summary....even just one sentence would do.

Am I wrong?==>the last common ancestor would be the first one as well?

[scrmbldggs]

Who says water and fire don't mix.

[Poodle]

Yep - you're wrong, bobbo.

All ancestors of the last common ancestor are common ancestors. Not all descendants of the first common ancestor necessarily have anything to do with anything alive on Earth for the last few million years.

[nmblum88]

you really should add a statement or summary....even just one sentence would do.

Am I wrong?==>the last common ancestor would be the first one as well?

You aren't wrong.
But you aren't right.
It's a wash….not everything requires a response.

I posted an article from the Science section of today's times.
I enjoyed reading it and then discussing it with a friend over lunch, and thought someone else with a pretense to interests in, or curious about the actual origins of life might too.
I am not required to provide an editorial on it.
You are not required to read it.


Norma Manna Blum

[scrmbldggs]

Yep - you're wrong, bobbo.

All ancestors of the last common ancestor are common ancestors. Not all descendants of the first common ancestor necessarily have anything to do with anything alive on Earth for the last few million years.

Cue george...

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

I thought there was a post here a few months back that life arose "only once" on Earth....ie and that is why all life on earth is so very similar. So..as I understand it...as we are all related there is only one common ancestor, the first arising life form. If there was x number of earlier creatures....there is no evidence for them at all.

To me....the phrase "last common ancestor" only makes sense when talking about two different subsets of all life?

Over thinking it?........or not enough?

Norma: its true. You can post however minimally you wish to. I'm just recommending you do slightly more so that others will know why your link is worth the time. Is it?

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

From the link, I think I'm wrong, but I have to read it again....makes sense on a quick first read. WHERE did I get the notion that all life was related? "The nature of the earliest ancestor of all living things has long been uncertain because the three great domains of life seemed to have no common point of origin."

[Matthew Ellard]

I thought there was a post here a few months back that life arose "only once" on Earth....

That would seem improbable. The article itself indicates that, when it claims early life forms somehow synthesised proteins from raw materials in its own extreme environment, which is not very efficient. The next form of life maybe a bit more mobile into different environments. We simply don't know.

However the article does seem a bit flawed. "Guessing" what the original DNA was four billion years ago, by sampling modern DNA, doesn't seem all that useful.

[Gord]

I thought there was a post here a few months back that life arose "only once" on Earth....

That would seem improbable.

I think I remember a Bible-thumper claiming that atheists claim that life only arose once. If I recall correctly, I suggested that life arose at least once, but although we can't be certain how many times, we can be fairly certain that we're all descendants of one original ancestor.

[ElectricMonk]

It is extremely likely that life arose many, many times, and very likely continues to do so today. But when the new-hatched proto-form encounters organisms with more a billion years of evolution behind them, it's like a slug encountering an 18-wheeler..

[nmblum88]

Feellas:
Science (knowledge) is inquiry.
It is also work.
The article I posted describes a certain area of inquiry, i.e. work.
It is not a sales pitch for the hypothesis being inquired about, it just informs you that IT IS BEING INQUIRED ABOUT..
And it allows you to entertain yourselves, as above.




NMB

[Matthew Ellard]

It is extremely likely that life arose many, many times, and very likely continues to do so today. But when the new-hatched proto-form encounters organisms with more a billion years of evolution behind them, it's like a slug encountering an 18-wheeler..

That is a really good point.

The book I found most interesting in this "theme" was Stephen Gould's Eight Little Piggies. Before any animals moved onto land, there were many many different evolved legs and toe combinations. Eight toes per foot, Six toes per foot and so on. Five toes is simply the most physically efficient for walking with a "flat hand or paw" on the ground. Five toes dominates life on earth.

I imagine there were and possible still pops up, new forms of life that simply cannot compete with the more efficient evolved existing life systems, which is exactly your point.

Eight little piggies..jpg

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Feellas:
Science (knowledge) is inquiry.
It is also work.
The article I posted describes a certain area of inquiry, i.e. work.
It is not a sales pitch for the hypothesis being inquired about, it just informs you that IT IS BEING INQUIRED ABOUT..
And it allows you to entertain yourselves, as above.NMB

...........and what does it do for you..... if any difference there is?