Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Real Common Ancestor?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Real Common Ancestor?

    Isn't the real Common Ancestor for all living things really a single, primitive cell? Can't all life on earth (in the evolutionary model) be traced back to one cell?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Isn't the real Common Ancestor for all living things really a single, primitive cell? Can't all life on earth (in the evolutionary model) be traced back to one cell?
    I think so yes, genetic sequences from all animals were compared, and the hypothesis that we descend from one species was found to be two billion times more likely than that we all descended from any multiple of species. And since it had to be a precursor of archea (extremophiles), prokaryotes (basically all bacteria) and eucaryotes (us, animals, plants, yeast, algeas), it was a simple primitive cell like creature.

    Comment


    • #3
      Wow, isn't science wonderful?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        I think so yes, genetic sequences from all animals were compared, and the hypothesis that we descend from one species was found to be two billion times more likely than that we all descended from any multiple of species. And since it had to be a precursor of archea (extremophiles), prokaryotes (basically all bacteria) and eucaryotes (us, animals, plants, yeast, algeas), it was a simple primitive cell like creature.
        So one cell happens to survive, divides, they happen to survive long enough, and so on. I'm not sure yet, but something doesn't look right with this picture. There were no other cells that started a different genetic line?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Current thinking has it that things were somewhat muddled back then. It's not at all clear that the CA was something we would recognize as a cell. There's also some reason to believe that there was a lot of horizontal transfer of genetic material in the early days. (note that I did not say genes). So the root of the tree is unlikely to be one cell.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JOnF View Post
            Current thinking has it that things were somewhat muddled back then. It's not at all clear that the CA was something we would recognize as a cell. There's also some reason to believe that there was a lot of horizontal transfer of genetic material in the early days. (note that I did not say genes). So the root of the tree is unlikely to be one cell.
            So then wouldn't we eventually have different lines that were not genetically related?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Apparently not. Horizontal transfer. Whatever existed back then homogenized genetically.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JOnF View Post
                Apparently not. Horizontal transfer. Whatever existed back then homogenized genetically.
                But why would they be genetically homogenized? It seems to me that once you had different lines you had the real possibility of different genetic outcomes.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  But why would they be genetically homogenized? It seems to me that once you had different lines you had the real possibility of different genetic outcomes.


                  Horizontal transfer means genetic material was copied from one to the next and vice versa. You start with different lines which then homogenize as material is transferred back and forth. Originally, the possibility of different genetic outcomes may have been possible. Once that material was interchanged enough times, that ceases to be the case. After enough transfer, you no longer have distinct genetic lines.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post


                    Horizontal transfer means genetic material was copied from one to the next and vice versa. You start with different lines which then homogenize as material is transferred back and forth. Originally, the possibility of different genetic outcomes may have been possible. Once that material was interchanged enough times, that ceases to be the case. After enough transfer, you no longer have distinct genetic lines.
                    Transferred back and forth and interchanged between what? Different cells?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Transferred back and forth and interchanged between what? Different cells?
                      Populations of cells which were capable of exchanging genetic material.
                      You might be interested in this paper, which explains this in the context of the optimization of the genetic code:
                      Collective evolution and the genetic code

                      The authors argue (among other things) that access to a much greater gene-pool (through a common genetic code) allowed those organism who shared that genetic code to out-compete those populations who had access to a more restricted gene-pool.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ucchedavāda View Post
                        Populations of cells which were capable of exchanging genetic material.
                        So we know that these early cells were capable of exchanging genetic material? Do cells today exchange genetic material? And wouldn't this still lead us back to one primitive cell? I mean for cells to exchange genetic material you would think that they needed the same parent.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Transferred back and forth and interchanged between what? Different cells?
                          Not necessarily cells. Transfer of genetic material is possible without both entities being a cell. Viruses are a great example of this.


                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So we know that these early cells were capable of exchanging genetic material? Do cells today exchange genetic material? And wouldn't this still lead us back to one primitive cell? I mean for cells to exchange genetic material you would think that they needed the same parent.
                          Yes, they still exchange genetic material. Check out this wiki article on Horizontal Gene Transfer.

                          I think it could be said to lead us back to one population of primitive cells. I don't think there's any indication it came down to a single cell, but I could be wrong.

                          No, genetic material can be exchanged in a number of ways without needing the same parent. Viruses actually insert RNA or DNA into a host cell as part of their replication cycle. Sometimes that new section of code can be passed on to descendants, but it's relatively rare afaik.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            So we know that these early cells were capable of exchanging genetic material? Do cells today exchange genetic material?
                            It seems likely that past primitive cells could take up DNA from the environment, since modern cells are capable of doing this, both passively and actively. And as Carrikature points out, viruses offers another means of transferring genetic material between cells. Furthermore, if we assume that proto-life existed without cellular membranes at some point, then exchange of genetic material would have been unavoidable.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            And wouldn't this still lead us back to one primitive cell? I mean for cells to exchange genetic material you would think that they needed the same parent.
                            No, they need a (reasonably) compatible genetic code. See the paper I linked above. Furthermore, if you do have exchange of genetic material in this manner, the notion of pointing to "one primitive cell" becomes rather meaningless, since any cell you can point to will be a mosaic.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ucchedavāda View Post
                              It seems likely that past primitive cells could take up DNA from the environment, since modern cells are capable of doing this, both passively and actively. And as Carrikature points out, viruses offers another means of transferring genetic material between cells. Furthermore, if we assume that proto-life existed without cellular membranes at some point, then exchange of genetic material would have been unavoidable.


                              No, they need a (reasonably) compatible genetic code. See the paper I linked above. Furthermore, if you do have exchange of genetic material in this manner, the notion of pointing to "one primitive cell" becomes rather meaningless, since any cell you can point to will be a mosaic.
                              Ok, that sounds plausible. Well, if it actually happened.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              33 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              34 responses
                              213 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X