Can all life be descended from a single-celled organisim?

I have a powerful hunch since you do not know the book contents this is going to be how you see the book.
But you have brought up things I did not know.

 

GOD means many different things to many different people.

For me.....GOD.....is the Multiverse.

AA

 

Awesome power. Just how I described things.

 

But simpler animals have simpler, less evolved eyes.

 

How that relates to humans is anyone's guess.

 

creationist:
a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible
and does not accept the theory of evolution
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/creationist

 

That is a very poor definition.

Since the Bible is ancient text, I do not hold the ancients to account for the way they then had to explain things.

I cut them slack.

I am positive GOD is the CREATOR.

I am quite positive matter is not eternal. That energy is not eternal. We who studied physics learned how energy is produced by matter. But we were never able to ascertain what it was like pre matter and pre energy.

A thousand years from now, some person who will contain a lot more knowledge than any of us have, will add to the data base. We can't really accurately predict those findings.

Evolution = change.

Boiled down that is exactly all it is.

We see change in family photos. The children are not the parents in looks. Even those minor changes = evolution.

The concept a single cell ended up in millions of years becoming human. This part is very hard to digest.

Even the so called scientist seems threatened to take it back that far and stops at the Chimp.

I think for most humans, this tends to offend them.

My concept is GOD is able to create humans. And transport them. And has transported blacks to Africa, whites to Europe and the so called yellows to Asia and the tans to the America. Notice how Chinese never resemble Africans. Native Americans don't look European.

 

Would you not be required to understand what this "God" actually is to be positive about anything it has done?

Unril you can define this aspect of the statement anything following it is irrelevant. Lets just begin with that shall we?

 

In science there are 2 possibilities. Panspermia. Or the soup of organic substances reacted to make RNA which developed into DNA, which later formed protein strains and so fourth.

Panspermia route will have different microbes evolving differently in different environments.
Organic soup rout will have the same microbe evolving differently in different environments.

 

I've always found Panspermia lame.
It just kicks the 'Life' problem down the Universe.
+

 

Both could have happened......

 

Yeh but when you have bacteria fossilize in a Martian rock that was found on earth



And then this strange microscopic titanium ball from outer space, spewing biological matter



Many foreign objects impacted the earth during its formation. Just look at the moon, the earth didn't fare much better

 

Actually that turned out to be a natural formation. Even if it was how do you know that it didn't got it opinion re-entry? How do you know that it didn't get contaminated sitting there for however long the scientists said it sat? More importantly though is why would you consider that life but at the same time consider a conceived egg in the mother not life?

 

No it hasn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001

What are you on about? Why are you bringing in an abortion issue?

 

Yes it has.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_3/j10_3_293-296.pdf

Even your own linked stated it was constriversial. As to my abortion statement it was just pointing the hypocrisy of some people. You didn't answered my questions.

 

The Bacillus anthracis, the anthrax bacteria, can also form spores and survive tens to hundreds of years.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/artic...nd-viruses-live-surfaces-home-normal-room-tem

That means a meteorite can travel to our system from another system

Asteroids can travel really fast. This one travels at 280,000mph
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ing-280-000mph-asteroid-travelling-Earth.html

If it came from Alpha Centauri(4.367 light years away) traveling at those speeds, how long did it take to get here? 10459 years.

The bacteria can survive for tens of hundreds of years in space. Microbial life can easily survive in space long enough.

 

AGAIN Fallen, and UNanswered save the really hyper-exceptional asteroid from the already hyper-rare planet with life...

Again, the fact there may have been Primordial soup elsewhere TOO just, AGAIN, 'kicks the life can down the universe.'
Suppose earth or Mars seeded each other?
Does that solve the 'Life' problem? No.
Life may have arisen in thousands of places, and then in Some instances seeded life elsewhere, but not likely much between systems, because even in THIS meteorite's intra-system instance, it was in space for 17 million years, and at that point had nothing alive on it when it landed.
But we did have to bear another of the graphics shows you can't resist. ​

Your new post, pointing to some tiny exceptions in asteroid travel, doesn't dent my "not likely," Nor the problem of what triggered life from primordial elements.. anywhere.
+

 

Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory1. As first suggested by Darwin2, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past3, 4, 5, 6. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing7, 8, 9, 10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life11, 14, 15. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory5, 16, 17 to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.



Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the origin of
eukaryotes and the early evolution of life by endosymbiotic fusion of
an early archaeon and bacterium29. A key commonality of these
hypotheses is the rejection of a single, bifurcating tree as a proper
model for the ancestry of Eukarya. For instance, in these biological
hypotheses certain eukaryotic genes are derived from Archaea
whereas others are derived from Bacteria. The class II models freely
allow eukaryotic genes to be either archaeal-derived or bacterialderived,
as the data dictate, and hence class II hypotheses can model
several endosymbiotic ‘rings’ and HGT events. Because specific
endosymbiotic fusion schemes can be represented by constrained
versions of the unrestricted class II models, the endosymbiotic fusion
hypotheses are nested within the class II hypotheses shown in Table 2.
For nested hypotheses, the constrained versions necessarily have
equal or lower likelihoods than the unconstrained versions. As a
result, strict bounds can be placed on the LLR and DAIC scores
for the constrained class II network models that represent specific
endosymbiotic fusion or HGT hypotheses (see Methods and
Supplementary Information). In all cases, these bounds show that
multiple-ancestry versions of the constrained class II models are
overwhelmingly rejected by the tests (model selection scores of
several thousands), indicating that common ancestry is also preferred
for all specific HGT and endosymbiotic fusion models. In terms of a
fusion hypothesis for the origin of Eukarya, the data conclusively
support a UCA model in which Eukarya share an ancestor with
Bacteria and another independently with Archaea, and in which
Bacteria and Archaea are also genetically related independently of
Eukarya (see Table 3).

The proteins in this data set were postulated to be orthologous on
the basis of significant sequence similarity27. Because the proteins are
universally conserved, all of the taxa have their own specific versions
of each of the proteins. It would be of interest to know how the tests
respond to the inclusion of proteins that are not universally conserved,
as omitting independently evolved proteins could perhaps
bias the results towards common ancestry. Nevertheless, the inclusion
of bona fide independently evolved genes has no effect on the
likelihoods of the winning class II models, except in certain cases to
strengthen the conclusion of common ancestry (for a formal proof,
see the Supplementary Information). Many proteins probably do
exist that have independent origins. For instance, in the Metazoa
certain protein domains have probably evolved de novo that are not
found in either Bacteria or Archaea30. However, the independent
evolution of unique Metazoan proteins, by itself, is not evidence
for or against UCA. The probability that the Metazoa would evolve
a new protein domain is the same whether or not the Metazoa are
related to Bacteria and Archaea. Therefore, omitting proteins with
independent origins from the data set does not affect support for the
UCA hypothesis versus multiple-ancestry hypotheses. In fact, including
independently evolved proteins is expected to increase support
for common ancestry for the subsets of taxa that share them (in this
example, to increase support for common ancestry of the Metazoa).

What property of the sequence data supports common ancestry so
decisively? When two related taxa are separated into two trees, the
strong correlations that exist between the sequences are no longer
modelled, which results in a large decrease in the likelihood. Consequently,
when comparing a common-ancestry model to a multipleancestry
model, the large test scores are a direct measure of the increase
in our ability to accurately predict the sequence of a genealogically
related protein relative to an unrelated protein. The sequence correlations
between a given clade of taxa and the rest of the tree would be
eliminated if the columns in the sequence alignment for that clade were
randomly shuffled. In such a case, these model-based selection tests
should prefer the multiple-ancestry model. In fact, in actual tests with
randomly shuffled data, the optimal estimate of the unified tree (for
both maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses) contains an extremely
large internal branch separating the shuffled taxa from the rest. In
all cases tried, with a wide variety of evolutionary models (from the
simplest to the most parameter rich), the multiple-ancestry models for
shuffled data sets are preferred by a large margin over common ancestry
models (LLR on the order of a thousand), even with the large internal
branches. Hence, the large test scores in favour of UCA models reflect
the immense power of a tree structure, coupled with a gradual
Markovian mechanism of residue substitution, to accurately and precisely
explain the particular patterns of sequence correlations found
among genealogically related biological macromolecules.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html%3Fref%3Dnf

 

We have ample evidence that life shares common ancestry, and that unicellular life preceded multicellular life, so....

 

Evolution is true.

 

Mantra.

 

That's fine if you believe that. The issue is that you have provided zero evidence and should not expect anyone else to be compelled to accept that. Whereas there is plenty of evidence for common ancestry, as has been presented in this thread. You can believe what you want. I find your beliefs much more exciting than what reality obviously actually is. Some people want life to be exciting and magical. Some people want real answers to real questions, even if the study is a bit dry and technical. You are the former.

If it makes you feel any better, some of the people outclassing you on this topic are completely clueless when it comes to a realistic, technical analysis of economics. It's like evolution is way above your head, but economics is way above the heads of even those who seem to understand evolution.

I wonder why they think their positions on economics are any more valid than yours on evolution. They have clearly studied economics exactly as much as you have studied evolution.

It almost seems completely random, like you guys just pick positions out of a hat, and that no one is actually capable of studying anything. Objectivity is dead. Is this the human condition, and I am uniquely gifted? Or are you not living up to your potential?

 

Yes, though it should be noted that most 'major' forms of life (the Eukaryotes, including animals, plants, fungi, and protists), actually evolved from two cells; an archaea and a bacteria that 'merged', as far as current theories go.

Edit: Also, think more in terms of billions than millions, if you're talking about the common ancestry of a bacterium and a human being.

 

Yep. It started as a single celled organism in an oxygen deprived environment.

In a experiment, e coli evolved to be able to process a material that it couldn't process before.

Similar thing could have happened on early earth.

We know that water absorbs carbon dioxide

The fist life originated in water and consumed carbon dioxide which the water obsorbed, creating oxygen in the process.

As the environment became more oxygen rich, some evolved so that they could process oxygen

Being able to process oxygen now, they became more complex. Over time this complexity grew as life was constantly challenged and life had to constantly adapt. Over millions of years this adaptation became evolution. Naturally occurring mutations sped up and aided this evolution.