All Life Came From One Initial Life - Evidence?

[rush1169]

What is the best available evidence that is held that confirms that all life came from one initial living combination of molecules?

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What is the best available evidence that is held that confirms that all life came from one initial living combination of molecules?

"Best" is a word of opinion; to me, the similarity in DNA across all life on earth, and the fact that we know life hasn't always existed, suggests that at some point, there was an initial form of life. I doubt one single individual gave rise to all life on earth though.

 

[rush1169]

"Best" is a word of opinion; to me, the similarity in DNA across all life on earth, and the fact that we know life hasn't always existed, suggests that at some point, there was an initial form of life. I doubt one single individual gave rise to all life on earth though.

I agree - I see the subjectivity in the question and am hoping to see several opinions of the best evidence. However, as far as DNA, isn't DNA fairly limited in the time-scale? Isn't DNA unavailable after a few thousand years?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree - I see the subjectivity in the question and am hoping to see several opinions of the best evidence. However, as far as DNA, isn't DNA fairly limited in the time-scale? Isn't DNA unavailable after a few thousand years?

We have Neanderthal DNA older than that, and have unfrozen ancient bacteria that are hundreds of thousands of years old, only to find that they are even still alive Melting Glaciers Liberate Ancient Microbes - Scientific American .

 

[justlookinla]

What is the best available evidence that is held that confirms that all life came from one initial living combination of molecules?

There ain't none, based on the scientific method.

 

[whois]

However, as far as DNA, isn't DNA fairly limited in the time-scale? Isn't DNA unavailable after a few thousand years?

the formation of DNA was described by crick as a "frozen accident".

the tree of life suggests a common ancestor, but it needs to be discarded because of recent findings in molecular biology..

 

[PsychoSarah]

the formation of DNA was described by crick as a "frozen accident".

the tree of life suggests a common ancestor, but it needs to be discarded because of recent findings in molecular biology..

Except the only way you think that way is because you misunderstood the material.

 

[Ophiolite]

the tree of life suggests a common ancestor, but it needs to be discarded because of recent findings in molecular biology..

What specific findings are you referring to?

In what way do these findings raise doubts about a single common ancestor?

And, for everyone to ponder, given the preponderance of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria how meaningful is the phrase "single common ancestor"?

 

[whois]

And, for everyone to ponder, given the preponderance of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria how meaningful is the phrase "single common ancestor"?

i tried to raise this issue in the epigenetics thread i started but was shouted down.
noble alludes to it, but koonin comes right out and says it.

 

[crjmurray]

i tried to raise this issue in the epigenetics thread i started but was shouted down.
noble alludes to it, but koonin comes right out and says it.

Dear Mr [Redacted],

I appreciate your interest but any idea that I questioned evolution by common descent is a gross misrepresentation. The phrase you quoted is mine but it means no such thing.

Sincerely,


Eugene V. Koonin
National Center for Biotechnology Information
National Library of Medicine,
NIH, Bethesda, USA

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the best available evidence that is held that confirms that all life came from one initial living combination of molecules?

Treeware & software.

 

[Ophiolite]

i tried to raise this issue in the epigenetics thread i started but was shouted down.
noble alludes to it, but koonin comes right out and says it.

Any chance you'll actually answer my questions in a responsible way?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I agree - I see the subjectivity in the question and am hoping to see several opinions of the best evidence. However, as far as DNA, isn't DNA fairly limited in the time-scale? Isn't DNA unavailable after a few thousand years?

It's not so much the age of DNA that leads to the conclusion. It's the fact that all living things use DNA, and the biochemical mechanisms that translate nucleotides into amino acids is basically the same in all life on earth. This implies a common origin.

Looking at things that have multiple origins, like say... writing. Egyptians wrote using hieroglyphs on papyrus, and the Sumerians wrote using cuneiform on clay, and the Mayans wrote their hieroglyphs on animal skin...

If different lifeforms were not linked into a single family tree by genetic inheritance, but 'arose separately' we would expect different methods of storing genetic information, and different methods for translating that information into amino acids.

 

[JacksBratt]

It's not so much the age of DNA that leads to the conclusion. It's the fact that all living things use DNA, and the biochemical mechanisms that translate nucleotides into amino acids is basically the same in all life on earth. This implies a common origin.

Looking at things that have multiple origins, like say... writing. Egyptians wrote using hieroglyphs on papyrus, and the Sumerians wrote using cuneiform on clay, and the Mayans wrote their hieroglyphs on animal skin...

If different lifeforms were not linked into a single family tree by genetic inheritance, but 'arose separately' we would expect different methods of storing genetic information, and different methods for translating that information into amino acids.

Right there...... Right where you went from recognizing a common design to stating that this "implied" something..... right at that point, you made an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Split Rock]

Right there...... Right where you went from recognizing a common design to stating that this "implied" something..... right at that point, you made an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

How do you go from "yes its implied by the evidence" to "its an assumption with no evidence?"

You are the one claiming "common design" with no evidence to back it up.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Right there...... Right where you went from recognizing a common design to stating that this "implied" something..... right at that point, you made an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

The OP asked for evidence for common descent from one initial life.

I provided some evidence, and said it implied common descent.

That is not an assumption. That is a presentation of facts, and an argument for a possible implication of those facts.

That is not an assumption.

An assumption is where you take something to be true without any evidence or argument.

That would be like looking at the common features of life that i pointed out, and then writing "common design" without any evidence or argument.

 

[Papias]

rush wrote:

What is the best available evidence that is held that confirms that all life came from one initial living combination of molecules?

Great question, and it's embarrassing that you don't have a better answer yet.

A very useful summary of the evidence is here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Note that the evidence is from many different fields of study. The key here is that they each, independently, predict a family tree of life. So millions of scientists break off into groups in their own fields, research the evidence in their own fields, conclude on a family tree based just on their own areas, then they all come back to the table, each with their own family tree of all life on earth.

Then they each reveal their tree - and the trees each agree with each other, confirming our common origin. This means that even if a whole area were missing - say, if no fossils of any kind had ever been found - that common descent would still be a well established fact. This is part of the reason why our evidence for common descent is stronger our evidence that the Civil War happened.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the origin is a common community. Due to lateral gene transfer one might not require that there was one single organism at the start.

In Christ-

-Papias

 

[whois]

Any chance you'll actually answer my questions in a responsible way?

what question might that be?
about the evidence?
i have no idea what evidence noble and koonin has.
noble gave 3 reasons for his stand, one was epigenetic.
he calls for a rewrite of darwinism.
koonin calls for an outright trashing of the entire paradigm.
i'm not to sure about noble, but koonin seems to have some decent credentials. one being the lead investigator of NCBI.

what's even more interesting is that koonin knows the position is controversial, buts states it anyway.
koonin says:
"At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, Our unfaltering admiration for Darwin notwithstanding, we must relegate this Victorian worldview to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift."

here is a paper from malloy and koonin on the TOL:
www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32


koonins book "the logic of chance" gives an excellent overveiw of the status of evolutionary theory among the specialists.
one reviewer had this to say:
"The Logic of Chance shows why these insights make the twentieth-century scientific consensus about evolution appear outdated and incomplete and outlines a fundamentally new approach: one that is challenging, sometimes controversial, and always firmly rooted in hard science."

 

[bhsmte]

what question might that be?
about the evidence?
i have no idea what evidence noble and koonin has.
noble gave 3 reasons for his stand, one was epigenetic.
he calls for a rewrite of darwinism.
koonin calls for an outright trashing of the entire paradigm.
i'm not to sure about noble, but koonin seems to have some decent credentials. one being the lead investigator of NCBI.

You have no idea about the evidence, yet you continuously cite them as a source?

Interesting.