Common Ancestor of All Cellular Life on Earth Emerged Very Early in Planet’s History

[JacksinPA]

Neo-Darwinian evolution depends on random mutations resulting in phenotypes (physical organisms) that are acted on by natural selection. How can the end product of untold numbers of random actions be predestined? Makes no sense if you think about it.

For instance, there have been a number of mass extinctions that had a profound effect on shaping natural selection. None of these events could be predicted, either in timing, effect or scope. So how can their present day outcome be predicted?

 

[Lionman]

Evolution, by definition, has no prefixed goal. Humans, for example, were never destined to learn languages, fashion tools, etc.

To be able to learn language is predestined by the biological evolution of human beings. Fashion has nothing to do with evolution at all. I will stop now this "discussion" because soon I will be banned from this forum.

 

[Exquisitor]

Common Ancestor of All Cellular Life on Earth Emerged Very Early in Planet?s History | Genetics, Paleontology | Sci-News.com

New research from the Universities of Bristol and Bath suggests life originated on our planet a lot earlier than previously thought.

The fossil record of early life is extremely fragmented, and its quality significantly deteriorates further back in time towards the Archean eon, more than 2.5 billion years ago, when the Earth’s crust had cooled enough to allow the formation of continents and the only life forms were microbes.

Now University of Bristol researcher Holly Betts and colleagues have used a combination of genomic and fossil data to explain the history of life on Earth, from its origin to the present day.
===============================================
Using different approaches, the scientists were able to estimate that the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of cellular life appeared nearly 4.5 billion years ago. This was almost immediately after the formation of the Earth which is estimated to be 4.543 billion years.

And now comes the problem: Multicellular life began only 600 million years ago. So the common ancestor of all multicellular life is about 3.9 billion years younger.

Every billion years or so cellular life is wiped out and only bacteria survive and octopus in pieces of the crust that orbit while the crust cools.

 

[Lionman]

Every billion years or so cellular life is wiped out and only bacteria survive and octopus in pieces of the crust that orbit while the crust cools.

What a nonsense. Tell me something real about the not existing multi-cellular organisms, which died out a billion years ago. You are the multi-cellular organism, who wipes out all multi-cellular life of the whole universe (worst case scenario). You are responsible. You and Trump!!! and some others too.

 

[Lionman]

Evolution, by definition, has no prefixed goal. ...

Evolution is a natural law. Gravity - a natural law too - has not the prefixed goal to hold you on the ground - nevertheless gravity is doing so. Evolution is a natural law in context biology. We use this natural law for artificial breeding and cultivation since thousands of years. A beagle - let me call him "Justin" - is for example a "product" of ... ¿only? ¿artificial? ¿evolution? ... or perhaps also a kind of child of god with a guarantee for paradise?

 

[JacksinPA]

To repeat myself, evolution is the process wherein random genetic mutations result in organisms that are either fitter or less fit for their environment. Since the beginning of life, the number of these random mutations is a very, very large number. How can you say that today's end products of this process were defined or predestined at the outset? If you hold this view you're getting into teleology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology. Then you're getting into philosophy. This is not the proper forum for discussing philosophy, which is neither science nor technology.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Theists are not going to be happy about this.

Tell 'em to watch Inherit the Wind.

 

[Lionman]

To repeat myself, evolution is the process wherein random genetic mutations result in organisms that are either fitter or less fit for their environment. Since the beginning of life, the number of these random mutations is a very, very large number. How can you say that today's end products of this process were defined or predestined at the outset? If you hold this view you're getting into teleology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology. Then you're getting into philosophy. This is not the proper forum for discussing philosophy, which is neither science nor technology.

First of all it's totally unimportant, whether a hammer hammers something with random or planful into a [self modifying] form (="environment"). Second: Because evolution is without plan (=is without teleology): Why exists life (and growing higher grades of freedom of living matter)? Is this a natural flow of matter?

 

[Exquisitor]

What a nonsense. Tell me something real about the not existing multi-cellular organisms, which died out a billion years ago. You are the multi-cellular organism, who wipes out all multi-cellular life of the whole universe (worst case scenario). You are responsible. You and Trump!!! and some others too.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I love a good rant.

Let's give birth to replicators who eat up the whole Universe and then when we emerge from the lake of fire we have to wait until the next one.

Eventually all these stars and planets and galaxies and their material coverings get eaten up by causal worms; a dictator that takes over a lead planet using the energy to make it back to paradise to tempt eve for some material sense gratification.

 

[Deuce]

And now comes the problem: Multicellular life began only 600 million years ago. So the common ancestor of all multicellular life is about 3.9 billion years younger.

That's not a problem but it is pretty neat.

 

[Deuce]

The senselessness of billions of years biological evolution.

What?

 

[Deuce]

Do you know that to be fact, and how so? Do not respond with a question as to why I might disagree, if I knew the answer I would not be asking.

Because evolution is a biological process, not a thinking entity that has goals or plans. Evolution doesn't have a goal for the same reason gravity doesn't have a goal.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Because evolution is a biological process, not a thinking entity that has goals or plans. Evolution doesn't have a goal for the same reason gravity doesn't have a goal.

Perhaps? Evolution is path. Ordained by an entity we don't understand, or not? As Robert Frost pointed out "the path not taken" as opposed to the one we walk.

I am not so certain.

 

[Deuce]

Perhaps? Evolution is path. Ordained by an entity we don't understand, or not? As Robert Frost pointed out "the path not taken" as opposed to the one we walk.

I am not so certain.

Evolution is a path in the sense that gravity is a path. The outcome has a progression over time. Neither has an objective or goal or plan. Gravity isn’t intelligent.

A hypothetical god could have a plan, that doesn’t mean gravity has a plan. A human creates a car to drive to work, that doesn’t mean the car has a goal.

And since there is no experiment you can run or data you can gather to test the existence of this entity, science has no actual opinion on it.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Evolution is a path in the sense that gravity is a path. The outcome has a progression over time. Neither has an objective or goal or plan. Gravity isn’t intelligent.

A hypothetical god could have a plan, that doesn’t mean gravity has a plan. A human creates a car to drive to work, that doesn’t mean the car has a goal.

And since there is no experiment you can run or data you can gather to test the existence of this entity, science has no actual opinion on it.

I don't see the comparison. A path does not need an objective, goal or plan. Perhaps gravity is part of a plan? Whether or not science offers an opinion is irrelevant to me. There is much science cannot explain. It is not the end all of all knowledge, just a methodology.

 

[Deuce]

I don't see the comparison. A path does not need an objective, goal or plan. Perhaps gravity is part of a plan? Whether or not science offers an opinion is irrelevant to me. There is much science cannot explain. It is not the end all of all knowledge, just a methodology.

You asked the question, man. Evolution doesn't have a goal because it's not an entity that thinks or plans. Conjecture about an "entity" directing the process is not relevant to this question.

 

[OldFatGuy]

You asked the question, man. Evolution doesn't have a goal because it's not an entity that thinks or plans. Conjecture about an "entity" directing the process is not relevant to this question.

Yes, I asked the question of your certainty. After going back and forth, I understand your acceptance, but without positioning a stance myself, I find the arguments you make weak, no better than I've heard from those who's beliefs are diametric to your own. These are never simplistic answers to what should be a simplistic question, but never is. I'm not saying I know better than you, just that I don't know and won't accept conclusions drawn from any point of view I have encountered.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, I asked the question of your certainty. After going back and forth, I understand your acceptance, but without positioning a stance myself, I find the arguments you make weak, no better than I've heard from those who's beliefs are diametric to your own. These are never simplistic answers to what should be a simplistic question, but never is. I'm not saying I know better than you, just that I don't know and won't accept conclusions drawn from any point of view I have encountered.

My certainty about what, exactly? That evolution is a process and not an entity? Is anyone actually objecting to that?

 

[OldFatGuy]

My certainty about what, exactly? That evolution is a process and not an entity? Is anyone actually objecting to that?

Your certainty of a common ancestor.

 

[Deuce]

Your certainty of a common ancestor.

The evidence is very convincing. Until substantial evidence to the contrary is found, what else am I supposed to think?

 

[OldFatGuy]

The evidence is very convincing. Until substantial evidence to the contrary is found, what else am I supposed to think?

The possibilities are endless. Some have theorized the arrival of different arrivals and contributions from what we call outer space, via meteorites or other intrusive materials, inadvertent changes and mutations caused by lightening, chemical changes in the atmosphere from volcanoes and so on. Then there are the gods, angels, whatever. Why the sudden changes in intelligence that appear in our little known history? The assumption of multiple intended instances is as valid as a single natural causation. Think what you want, I prefer an open mind to other possibilities, including those of which I cannot imagine.

I prefer to believe life with all its beauty and pain is not accidental. We all make our choices.

 

[JacksinPA]

Your certainty of a common ancestor.

Of course we have a common ancestor. It's spelled out by the fact that all or most living things today share the same genetic apparatus & metabolic systems as primitive, one-celled microbes. Besides that, all (or most) living things - insects to mammals - share the same homeotic genes that determine body plans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene. This is strong evidence of a common origin of all living things.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Of course we have a common ancestor. It's spelled out by the fact that all or most living things today share the same genetic apparatus & metabolic systems as primitive, one-celled microbes.

Your assumption, your belief, not mine. Nothing is truly "of course." Nothing.

50% of the human genome is identical to that of a banana. The proof is our politicians, a bunch of bananas, but not quite human.

 

[JacksinPA]

Your assumption, your belief, not mine. Nothing is truly "of course." Nothing.

50% of the human genome is identical to that of a banana. The proof is our politicians, a bunch of bananas, but not quite human.

It's not an assumption, nor a belief. It is the falsifiable result from years of scientific study. But it has not been falsified, as shown in your pointing out the resemblance between humans & fruit. It spells out a common origin of life. If there wasn't this similarity I would be looking for some other explanation.

 

[OldFatGuy]

It's not an assumption, nor a belief. It is the falsifiable result from years of scientific study. But it has not been falsified, as shown in your pointing out the resemblance between humans & fruit. It spells out a common origin of life. If there wasn't this similarity I would be looking for some other explanation.

You choose to believe in science. I believe science is but part of the puzzle. My choice.