Richard87
- 31
- 0
Assuming that all organisms came from a single original lifeform, wouldn't that mean that all organisms are cousins in one huge family?
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.
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.
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 said:Assuming that all organisms came from a single original lifeform, wouldn't that mean that all organisms are cousins in one huge family?
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.
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