Are all organisms relatives of each other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard87
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the idea that if all organisms descended from a single original lifeform, they could be considered distant relatives. However, some argue against this assumption, suggesting that multiple lifeforms could have originated independently, leading to diverse branches of life. The presence of DNA across the three main branches of life—archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes—raises questions about the necessity of a single ancestral organism. It is posited that life could have started multiple times, with various forms coexisting, and that the DNA-based lifeforms ultimately prevailed. The conversation also touches on the possibility of life beginning with RNA and the idea of hybrid compositions among early lifeforms. The notion that all matter, including life, originates from cosmic processes is acknowledged, emphasizing a shared elemental heritage.
Richard87
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Assuming that all organisms came from a single original lifeform, wouldn't that mean that all organisms are cousins in one huge family?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Yes - although 'family' has a specific technical meaning in evolution
 
Richard87 said:
Assuming that all organisms came from a single original lifeform, wouldn't that mean that all organisms are cousins in one huge family?

Well the way you've posed the question it would necessarily imply that they are all 'cousins' or 'relatives' at a distance. This is because you make the assumption that all organisms came from a single original lifeform.

I do not see why this assumption is necessary though... it's perfectly plausible that all lifeforms that have existed on Earth may have different branches if we go far enough back... making them completely unrelated to other organisms.

Why?

Well I think it's unlikely that in the beginning stages of life there was only one cell that had formed with characteristics which allowed it to spread/become dominant. Plus they possibly could have merged with other cells forming yet newer cells. I find it far fetched that the origins of life trace all the way back to a single organism for all lifeforms that have existed.
 
zomgwtf said:
I do not see why this assumption is necessary though... it's perfectly plausible that all lifeforms that have existed on Earth may have different branches if we go far enough back... making them completely unrelated to other organisms.

All three branches of life archaea, bacteria, and eukaryote have DNA.
For your hypothesis to be true, life would have had to evolve in all three independantly in exactly the same way to create DNA with the same structure 3 times.

It is possible that life did start several times and even that completely unrelated forms existed at the same time (and haven't left any fossil record) but the DNA cell won out and all life today descended from it
 
mgb_phys said:
All three branches of life archaea, bacteria, and eukaryote have DNA.
For your hypothesis to be true, life would have had to evolve in all three independantly in exactly the same way to create DNA with the same structure 3 times.

It is possible that life did start several times and even that completely unrelated forms existed at the same time (and haven't left any fossil record) but the DNA cell won out and all life today descended from it

Life started most likely with RNA and yeah since the molecules are floating around (amino acids) they will get gobbled up by cells and inside the cell all the magic happens.
 
Assuming multiple origins of DNA or RNA based life upon the Earth originating locally or cosmologically, it is more than likely that hybrid compositions would be existant. Nearly all organisms are viral and bacterial with a distant minority of more complex experiments, so the subject in question is for the most part about these.
 
Last edited:
course we are, we all came from stardust from a supernovae, which in turn came from the universe which is our mother
 
Back
Top