"The ancestor of all living things….."
-
- Has No Life
- Posts: 12757
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
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?
Am I wrong?==>the last common ancestor would be the first one as well?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
- scrmbldggs
- Real Skeptic
- Posts: 21782
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
- Custom Title: something
- Location: somewhere
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
Who says water and fire don't mix. 

.
Lard, save me from your followers.
Lard, save me from your followers.
- Poodle
- Has More Than 9K Posts
- Posts: 9001
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
- Custom Title: Regular sleeper
- Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
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.
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.
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: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
Last edited by nmblum88 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
- scrmbldggs
- Real Skeptic
- Posts: 21782
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
- Custom Title: something
- Location: somewhere
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
Poodle wrote: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...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.
Lard, save me from your followers.
-
- Has No Life
- Posts: 12757
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
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?
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?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
-
- Has No Life
- Posts: 12757
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
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."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
-
- Real Skeptic
- Posts: 27746
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
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.bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I thought there was a post here a few months back that life arose "only once" on Earth....
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
- Obnoxious Weed
- Posts: 30486
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
- Custom Title: Silent Ork
- Location: Transcona
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
Matthew Ellard wrote:That would seem improbable.bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I thought there was a post here a few months back that life arose "only once" on Earth....
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.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
- ElectricMonk
- Persistent Poster
- Posts: 3774
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
- Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
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..
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
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
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
-
- Real Skeptic
- Posts: 27746
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
ElectricMonk wrote: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.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Has No Life
- Posts: 12757
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Re: "The ancestor of all living things….."
nmblum88 wrote: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?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?
Return to “The Letting Go of God Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest