Are all organisms relatives of each other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard87
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether all organisms are relatives of each other, particularly in the context of evolutionary biology. Participants explore the implications of a common ancestor for all life forms and consider alternative hypotheses regarding the origins of life on Earth.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if all organisms descended from a single original lifeform, they could be considered distant relatives or "cousins."
  • Others argue against the necessity of a single common ancestor, suggesting that multiple origins of life could have occurred, leading to completely unrelated branches of life.
  • One participant notes that for the hypothesis of multiple independent origins to hold, life would have had to evolve in the same way across different branches (archaea, bacteria, eukaryotes) to produce DNA with the same structure, which they find unlikely.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that life may have started multiple times, with some forms potentially existing simultaneously without leaving a fossil record, while DNA-based life ultimately became dominant.
  • There is a mention of the possibility of hybrid compositions arising from multiple origins of life, particularly in the context of viral and bacterial organisms.
  • A more philosophical perspective is introduced, stating that all matter, including organisms, originates from stardust, framing the discussion in a cosmic context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of a single common ancestor for all life, with some supporting the idea and others proposing alternative scenarios. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the origins of life and the implications of evolutionary theory, but no consensus is reached regarding the necessity of a single ancestor or the validity of multiple origins.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
6K