Evolution?

Which is the first of these that you disagree with?


  • Total voters
    121
Why did people rush to option 5?

Option 4 makes much more sense.

Life did probably did not start from one organism but from several spontaneously generated organisms in several locations at different times.

I went with 4 as well. To put it differently, I don't think that 5 accurately reflects the "Theory of Evolution" per se... IOW, I'm not sure that all/most/any contemporary evolutionary biologists maintain that life evolved from a single ancestral organism.

The key is the fact that simple organisms can swap genes pretty readily. So the assumption that the "ancestral genome" came from a single organism is invalid.
 
I went with 4 as well. To put it differently, I don't think that 5 accurately reflects the "Theory of Evolution" per se... IOW, I'm not sure that all/most/any contemporary evolutionary biologists maintain that life evolved from a single ancestral organism.

The key is the fact that simple organisms can swap genes pretty readily. So the assumption that the "ancestral genome" came from a single organism is invalid.

In order to swap genes, two simple organisms need two similar modes of inheritance and genetic codes in terms of chemical make-up. A single organism did not need to "swap genes", the first organisms reproduced asexually.
 
In order to swap genes, two simple organisms need two similar modes of inheritance and genetic codes in terms of chemical make-up. A single organism did not need to "swap genes", the first organisms reproduced asexually.

Some bacteria eat others, and then 'uptake' their genes that way, too.
 
In order to swap genes, two simple organisms need two similar modes of inheritance and genetic codes in terms of chemical make-up. A single organism did not need to "swap genes", the first organisms reproduced asexually.

Well lemme back up. To your knowledge, is a "bacterial Eve" hypothesis the norm in evolutionary biology? It seems possible, at least in theory, for independently generated organisms to have compatible modes of inheritance, particularly since the earliest genomes were VERY simple by today's standards, even compared to modern bacteria or other single-cell organisms.
And I don't think that sexual reproduction is the only way for organsisms to exchange/transmit genes. I'm a little fuzzy on nomenclature and I can't give a cite b/c it's been a while, but I was under the impression that at least some theorists hypothesize that the "primordial soup" was essentially one big gene pool, with life spontaneously appearing all over the place and genes moving around fairly fluidly. But I'm getting a bit out of my element here.
So my original question: Is it generally accepted by evolutionary biologists that all modern life is descended from a single organsism, as postulated in Proposition 5? Not AFAIK, but I stand open to correction.

Edit: Looks like others beat me to it.
 
The problem with teaching (and easily discrediting) Creationism, even as an exercise, is that it specifically targets a major religion and shows how the (previously) popular interpretation of their text is false.

It seems kinda mean. It would be like stating that some people believe that people evolved from clams, and then proving that we weren't. It's just not necessary.


The thing is, most of the "proof" creationists cite are holy texts, so that is where the argument is centered. The scientific community has not discovered any evidence to support the notion everything magically appeared at some point in history. Also, in a debate, it is necessary to debate the facts and points your opponent brings to the table. If that happens to be a creation myth, then it must be analyzed like any other piece of evidence. It's not mean, it's systematic. That's what science is.

@Madroc: I got beat to it as well. I won't repeat here, but rather save my response for a later question. :)
 
Alright, so maybe I was a bit biased with my poll options. I'm pretty sure that most experts of evolutionary theory conclude that all life today evolved from one organism, but it's not unanimous.
 
Alright, so maybe I was a bit biased with my poll options. I'm pretty sure that most experts of evolutionary theory conclude that all life today evolved from one organism, but it's not unanimous.
I remember back in Freshman Bio (2 years ago), where someone was stating the possibility of more than one starting cell. It is entirely within possibility, but we don't see any significant variation on the basics (RNA language, same 20 amino acids out of 60, etc.)
 
I remember back in Freshman Bio (2 years ago), where someone was stating the possibility of more than one starting cell. It is entirely within possibility, but we don't see any significant variation on the basics (RNA language, same 20 amino acids out of 60, etc.)

Exactly, the fact that a single language is used strongly implies starting from one
organism.
 
But, if a case like archaic transformation is correct, then maybe there were 2 types, but one died out, and some of their corpses still functioning parts were integrated into the other type of life.
 
But, if a case like archaic transformation is correct, then maybe there were 2 types, but one died out, and some of their corpses still functioning parts were integrated into the other type of life.

I don´t believe that this have happened. Of course it´s possible, and I don´t deny it if an educated scientist comes to say that this is the case. But it seems pretty unlikely that other organism has absorbed another, when these organisms could have been born any where in the world. There is also a possibility that the life of Earth has came from space, witch isn´t so unlikely because it could have happened any time between 4,5-3,5 billion years ago. Still I believe there has been one organism and every thing has started from it.
 
I thought modern bacterial transformation was strange until my Bio teacher explained it to me. Then I kind of thought of the possibilities with that.

Another thing is, that Mitochondria and Chloroplasts could be considered to be those absorb other organisms as you ask, as they have their own DNA, and their own cell cycles. Basically endosymbyosis with Eukaryotes. And some do exist without Eukaryote hosts, but are not as specialized as the ones in Eukaryotes, as they have to provide their own stuff, rather have a host make everything else for them.

It's not likely for archaic bacterial transformation to occur, but it's possible.
 
Thanks to Bluemofia for his middle paragraph--mitochondria were believed to be independent organisms until being absorbed by larger ones. I'm not sure about chloroplasts, but it makes sense, all things considered.

But here's the problem--I see people saying "I believe there was one organism that everybody came from" (not picking on any one in particular). That's not science--that's just the same as claiming intelligent design. The fact is, until direct evidence is presented to support the 1-organism hypothesis, it will not become theory (note the choice of words).

There is certainly indirect evidence--the similarity of amino acids in all living things, for example, as mentioned above. However, that could simply mean that organisms using other codes of amino acids and potentially different amino acids were not as well adapted to their environments and have died out since. We have not found every fossil, every piece, of the puzzle here. Therefore, you really can't say whether or not there was a single organism to start with.

Also, that depends on your definition of life. Is a virus alive because it has RNA and it replicates itself? Are the "soap bubbles" I mentioned above alive because they regulate internal environments through homeostasis? Self-replication and homeostasis are two conditions that are typically considered to be traits of living organisms, but what if it lacks a trait? Too often, people see life as an on-off switch, when in fact there is sort of a gradient in between life and non-life.

This lends itself to the question--where there multiple paths of development? Was there a preferred route? And when do you consider something alive? We know organic molecules that are not considered living could form in Earth's history, and we know there are living things now...but where is the cutoff? We don't know enough to be certain of that.

I suppose the roundabout point of what I'm posting is that although we don't know enough about this in-between stage yet, that does not discount the theory that living things develop and change with successive generations. That is the theory of evolution and natural selection, and that has been shown time and time again in the laboratory and in real environments. Speciation among fruit flies, for example, has been observed over the last two hundred years in North America.
 
There is certainly indirect evidence--the similarity of amino acids in all living things, for example, as mentioned above. However, that could simply mean that organisms using other codes of amino acids and potentially different amino acids were not as well adapted to their environments and have died out since. We have not found every fossil, every piece, of the puzzle here. Therefore, you really can't say whether or not there was a single organism to start with.
This would still mean that all current life shares a common ancestor, even if other organisms co-exited with it. All human males have a common ancestor (Y-Chromosomal Adam) and all Females have one too (Mitochondrial Eve) but there were other humans alive alongside each of these individuals.
 
It's just terminology. Don't worry, they were separated by several hundred years at least. About our most ancient ancestors co-existing with other organisms: firstly, I probably should have worded the poll more carefully. Saying "All things living today evolved from a single organism" would more accurately represent the option. Secondly, though I believe abiogenesis to be possible, and that it did happen in Earth's history, believing that it happened multiple times before the first instance of life had monopolized the planet's resources seems like a bit of a stretch.
 
It's just terminology. Don't worry, they were separated by several hundred years at least. About our most ancient ancestors co-existing with other organisms: firstly, I probably should have worded the poll more carefully. Saying "All things living today evolved from a single organism" would more accurately represent the option. Secondly, though I believe abiogenesis to be possible, and that it did happen in Earth's history, believing that it happened multiple times before the first instance of life had monopolized the planet's resources seems like a bit of a stretch.
Several, I don't think so either, but twice is possible for me to believe.
 
And the chances of those two merging their self replicating mechanisms? And the chances of the resulting organism being successful enough to have evolved into all the life forms that exist today? Not likely, in my opinion.
 
Not necessarily their self replicating mechanisms, just simply enough parts of one absorbed into the other to be radically different from both.
 
Back
Top Bottom