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

That doesn't solve the problem. If it takes 1 Billion years for one step of the process - that's one step of the zillions required - then evolution is dead as a theory. If you have a paper that solves the problem of the low rate of evolution, I'd like to see it (not in an argumentative way, I did not make an exhaustive effort so there may be papers with the explanation, and I really would like to see if there is an answer). There are a lot of papers on the issue, the problem seems to be very recognized, but in the few papers I've actually read there are no solutions - lots of hand waving and hypothesizing, but no real answers.

 

Those are Both Spectacularly wrong, illogical, and mindblowingly vacant of the basic terms.

1. Evolution does NOT depend on how life started.
That is called Abiogenesis.
Evolution starts AFTER the first life, and deals with HOW it progressed.
And again, there is overwhelming evidence Evolution is correct.

2. One can additionally Speculate that the the first life too, 'evolved' from a 'primordial soup', but Evolution does NOT depend on it.
No matter if it started by aliens dropping a single one-cell on earth, Evolution would Still be a demonstrable Fact.
Evolution need Not explain Abiogenesis, or the Big Bang for that matter.

3. If it took One Billion Years for the First cell to get created (or just dropped here by a Comet/Aliens/etc), that doesn't mean it couldn't explode to planet (or Ocean) -wide in just another, ie, 1000 years.
It doesn't have to take another Billion years for that Cell to divide (and/or mutate) rapidly.
This, again, is Mindlowingly and willfully (I hope/I dunno) .. 'numb.'
+

 

Those numbers come from your reference, remember? You wrote "For some REAL numbers I suggest some non-Cherry-Picked googling" - well, I used your "REAL" numbers.

And now you don't like your "REAL" numbers.

Meaningless hand waving. The subject is the rate of evolution. Give me numbers, give me real papers that quantify the rate of evolution, don't waste my time with BS.

 

Rate of evolution?
Alleged flaws are usually based on misunderstandings of the theory or misrepresentation of the evidence.

 

The rate of evolutionary change, the rate of mutation. There are plenty of papers on it, obviously I have not read them all, but enough to see the low rate is too low to support evolution even with large populations and billions of years, and its a major problem.

I don't need to read an excuse, show me a paper that explains it and has fact based numbers.

 

No I did not. I just said it was the least likely option given the possible options we routinely debate without the participation of experts in biology and science.

 

I don't see the point if you’re conflating abiogenesis with evolution. which you are.

 

Then reference a paper that addresses the rate of change of evolution. If I'm all wrong (and as I have written, I could be), then set me straight.

 

5. Horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer

 

Horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer doesn't require a number of small mutations (like single nucleotide polymorphisms) over many generations. With horizontal gene transfer an organism can acquire a complete, entirely functional gene, hundreds to thousands of nucleotides long, in one generation.

 

We have a good idea how eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes. Eukaryotic cells are cells found in plants and animals, like us. The major difference between eukaryotes and prokaryotes is eukaryotes contain membrane bound organelles, like mitochondria. Prokaryotes are much simpler.

Mitochondria are "the powerhouse of the cell" because they generate most of the cell's supply of chemical energy. Evidence that Mitochondria were once bacteria (prokaryotes) living independantly is mitochondria reroduce through a process similar to binary fission and binary fission is the form of reproduction of bacteria. Transport proteins called porins are found in the outer membrane of mitochondria and porins are also found on bacterial cell membranes. Mitochondria contain circular DNA molecules that are similar to the DNA of bacteria. Mitochondrial ribosomes are more similar those found in bacteria (70S) than those found in eukaryotes.

Et cetera…………………

 

Never heard of horizontal gene transfer (learn something new all the time) so I looked it up. It does not appear to be stable. In a paper on genetically modified plants (Roundup Ready soybeans) the transfer was seen in bacteria, but after several generations the transferred gene was gone http://www.bashanfoundation.org/hartmann/hartmanntransfer.pdf

[But I also learned from the paper that even though the Roundup Ready plants are resistant to the herbicide, farmers spray Roundup on the plants just before harvesting because the herbicide causes the maturing of the seeds - so Roundup does have an impact on the plant, its not used just as a herbicide, and maybe it isn't good to eat GM foods after all]

Horizontal gene transfer also seems to be only related to bacteria?

And there is this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842723/ which concludes
"In any case, horizontal gene transfer is not a canonical or typical evolutionary mechanism. Thus, I agree with other authors that there is a need for a new paradigm in evolution that includes horizontal gene transfer among other neo-Darwinian and non-neo-Darwinian mechanisms."

What a non-conclusive conclusion - its not a mechanism of evolution, but the theory of evolution needs to be modified to include it.

A few more recent papers (2014/2015) indicate hgt is promising and "•Horizontal gene transfer challenges the traditional view of evolution as a slow process".

But no numbers regarding the rate of evolution.

To me it looks like a potential answer still in the works.

 

The roundup ready crops are genetically engineered.

Read this study: Contribution of Horizontal Gene Transfer to the Evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae



I simplified the study, removing as much of the scientific jargon as possible and defined the terms I couldn't simplify , and put it into a hypothesis format.

Null Hypothesis #1: Horizontal gene transfer does not occur between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Alternative Hypothesis #1: Horizontal gene transfer occurs between prokaryotes and eukaryotes

Null Hypothesis #2: Horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes has not contributed to the evolution of Eukaryotes. Alternative Hypothesis: Horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes has contributed to their evolution

The experiment:

In the introduction, the researchers cite another study that found that the phylogeny of horizontally transferred genes is characteristically different from the species phylogeny.


Phylogeny is the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism

The methodology and evidence that a gene from bacteria was horizontally transferred to a eukaryotic organism


So the researchers employed a genome-wide comparative screen to determine the extent of horizontal gene transfer in two species of Yeast, S. cerevisiae and A. gossypii lineages.

And they found a possible horizontally transferred gene in the S. cerevisiae that wasn’t in the A. gossypi.

The gene they found allows for the utilization of organic sulfur compounds in anarobic environments.

Anaerobic environments do not have oxygen, aerobic environments have oxygen.

A gossypil has a similar gene but it only allows for it to utilize sulfer in aerobic environments.

Therefore, the gene gave S. cerevisiae the selective advantage of being able to utilize sulfer in anerobic environments and therefore contributed to its evolution.

The researchers findings suggest the acquisition of the gene facilitated the exploitation of anaerobic environments other organism could not survive in and therefore a gene acquired from bacteria contributed to its evolution.

The only other organism with this gene are the bacteria (prokaryotes) K. lactis, K. waltii, and S. kluyveri which supports the argument that the gene is horizontally transferred from bacteria.

Moreover, the gene has higher sequence identity to bacteria sulfatases than to any gene found in eukaryotes besides S. cerevisiae.

Among currently sequenced species, S. cerevisiae is the only eukaryotic organisms with a gene of this class. Therefore, horizontal transfer is clearly a mechanism for the acquisition of new genes in eukaryotes.

The horizontally transferred gene most likely provided a selective benefit. This selective benefit requires a selective pressure. In the case of the transfer of the DHOD gene, it optimized S. cerevisiae for anaerobic conditions which indicates that adaptation to anaerobic conditions and anaerobic environments has been an important part of the evolution of S. cerevisiae.

The mechanism.

The mechanism of DNA transfer requires that foreign DNA enter a cell. The researchers cite another study that discovered that Bacterium-to-fungus conjugation and natural transformation are possible explanations for how DNA from a bacterium with this gene could be taken up by S. cerevisiae.

The conclusion the researchers came to in the hypothesis format:

The study rejects the null hypothesis #1: Horizontal gene transfer does not occur between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. And the study accepts the alternative hypothesis #1 Horizontal gene transfer occurs between prokaryotes and eukaryotes

The Study rejects the null hypothesis #2: : Horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes has not contributed to the evolution of Eukaryotes. And the study accepts the alternative hypothesis #2: : Horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes has contributed to the evolution of eukaryotes

 

Horizontal gene transfer explains why the degree of gradualism attributed to Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record. HGT explains the mechanism of why the fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of species that suddenly appear.

 

evolution is fact, the order and path we evolved is up for debate... in other word, what the tree really looks like is up for debate, not evolution itself

 

Which God? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

 

What do you mean by Which GOD

If I said the Sun, do you ask which Sun?

The Sun is one of many stars.

GOD has no equal, no other gods before or post him.

 

Allah?

 

Only if you think of evolution as a real threat to religion does it matter.

I see no threat to GOD.

Evolution is what I call common sense over actual science.

- - - Updated - - -

That is only the Arabic word for the same thing. Do you hear of them having more than one Allah?

 

I've been using the Socratic Method on you. I'm asking you questions to make you reflect on your assumptions. In other words, what makes Yahweh any more believable or any less absurd than the other ten zillion gods our species has invented? Why do you put Yahweh on a pedestal?

 

Suiperstition is what I call nonsense compared to actual science.

 

The blind man is led past a herd of enormous elephants.

Told about elephants, he blurts out, "there is no such thing as Elephants.

Do not claim there are since I see none. "

 

Well, how about that. Used it on a man who is nearly 78 and has pondered life and it's magic for many decades.

You do understand I hope it is easier for you to not be a believer, than for me to be one.

I know you won't think this proves anything.

I look at the magic called Earth. I love the magic of flowers, all animals and even humans. I think of the human eye as a super remarkable thing.

When all animal life was blind, one of these days someone will blurt out the reason for the eye. What would a blind animal need with sight and what role is evolution? Was it first some other organ?

 

Norse Paganism is the one true path because why else would Norwegians be better looking than everyone else??? to make up for their disgusting food, like rotten shark meat fermented in urine???

 

You don't need to see a pile of elephant dung to know it's there when you can smell it.