Chemical evolution: Progenitors of the living world

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chemical evolution: Progenitors of the living world

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:28 pm

Well, it may not have been 4 billion. But it is worth remembering that the first cyanobacteria appeared after 1 billion, to do photosynthesis, and generate oxygen. Evolution takes a long time. Millions of years for truly profound change is not enough.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 12179
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Chemical evolution: Progenitors of the living world

Post by TJrandom » Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:26 am

Help me out here… If life on our planet arose from that primordial stew, then surely additional life should have been able to later arise out of the enhanced soup millions of years later – the detritus of the first life-thingies having been added. That is – why is it assumed that life erupted only once – or is it? If not, then we ought to be able to look at life today and find decedents of multiple lines of life – finding relatedness nonexistent. Unless of course, the first batch(s) entirely died out at some point. What say you/the experts?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5331
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Chemical evolution: Progenitors of the living world

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:46 am

TJrandom wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:26 am
Help me out here… If life on our planet arose from that primordial stew, then surely additional life should have been able to later arise out of the enhanced soup millions of years later – the detritus of the first life-thingies having been added. That is – why is it assumed that life erupted only once – or is it? If not, then we ought to be able to look at life today and find decedents of multiple lines of life – finding relatedness nonexistent. Unless of course, the first batch(s) entirely died out at some point. What say you/the experts?
some of the first batch evolved into something that took all the resources from those that didn't, causing them to die and get eaten by the new generation.
If primordial life is generated anywhere on earth today (and I think that under the right circumstances it might), it would instantly get snuffed out by the super-efficient organisms billions of years of evolution have produced.
Evolution tends to wipe out its own trace, and the only window we have is from fossils etc. of organisms that have been physically separated from the food chain.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Chemical evolution: Progenitors of the living world

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:13 am

Quite correct, EM.

It is also worth noting that genetic evidence shows commonalities across all life forms, which strongly implies that all Earth life evolved from the same distant ancestor.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 12179
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Chemical evolution: Progenitors of the living world

Post by TJrandom » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:52 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:13 am
Quite correct, EM.

It is also worth noting that genetic evidence shows commonalities across all life forms, which strongly implies that all Earth life evolved from the same distant ancestor.
Thanks - that put me on a search for more information, and I found this... , which supports your statement.