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

In another thread on evolution which is now closed, Robert posted the following:

When every single living organism starts out as a single-celled organism, why is it difficult to imagine that all life was at one time a single-celled organism?

 

Because life did not start as one cell. I mean animal life. There are various forms of life.

Besides, what will GOD do if you blame it all on one cell.

 

Your life started as a single cell, my life started as a single cell, every form of life we know of starts as a single cell. This is an easily observed fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

 

I knew that did not come out right on my part.

I am speaking not of a human, but all life. I am saying all life did not spring from the same common cell.

We have no proof that life, every form of life, sprang from one cell. Besides if a cell is life, the cell sprang from what?

 

Have you actually read any of the science books you claim to have in your possesion that concern abiogenesis or just use them as paperweights?

 

I follow your lead and do what you do.

 

Evolution is the theory.

As per scientific method, it's up to us to try to prove it false. Science has no way of proving a theory to be true. Scientific progress depends on us attempting to prove hypotheses to be false, thus leaving us with the successful theories.

Unfortunately for those who wish evolution could be proven false, nobody has succeeded in that.

And, it seems quite unlikely, given the fact that evolution can be seen all around us and even informs us of what will be found in the fossil record.

 

It is my understanding that the fossil record did not predict the future. And don't forget, fossils are extremely old.

I happen to accept evolution. My kids are not my mirror images. But still, a hell of a lot is made of TOE that could be proven false by more educated people than me.

The Aussie that found Mungo Man was completely dismissed by other scientists yet some show signs of coming around to his view. He found evidence.

 

The point was that the theory of evolution makes strong predictions about what will be found when we go looking for fossils. For example, we don't find the remains of modern species in ancient geological strata.

I'm interested in what it is about evolution that you think someone could prove false.

There certainly is a lot of evidence from Mungo Man. While there are those who think this find changes the specifics of our family tree and how early humanoids moved around the planet it doesn't appear to threaten the theory of evolution in any way. The theory of evolution specifies how new and different life forms come about. That helps anthropologists figure out early human movement.

 

Do you mean common ancestry of all organisms?
or life beginning from sexual intercourse?

 

Because its so unlikely that all the various forms of life on earth evolved from a single cell that its basically impossible. The idea that natural selection driven by random mutations resulted in such diverse life (and the multiple and independent development of common items such as the eye) requires the suspension of disbelief, its more of a religion than religion.

 

If you reject Darwinian evolution, then what theory do you accept(or do you claim to have no idea on the origin of life?)?

 

I find it likely that life as we now know it derived from cellular interaction over extremely long time frames until a combination allowed for self replication. In further time this allowed for mutation which created what we call DNA and genetic variation. More intriguing to me would be the initial Abiogenesis event that allowed for cell creation in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cells

 

Personally I believe God did it. But in case you are looking for an excuse to avoid the failure of Darwin, I used to believe in evolution and then rejected it long before becoming a Christian. Anyone who objectively looks at what evolution requires would reject it as impossible, the sheer improbability of successful mutation following successful mutation (most mutations are not beneficial, many are actually harmful) millions of times makes it completely unbelievable.

 

All that Mungo Man proves is that aborginees have been in Australia for 40,000 years. There is evidence of man in Africa dating back 2.3 million years.

- - - Updated - - -

Only mutations that aided adaption to a changing environment survived.

How difficult is it to grasp that concept?

 

So, a creationist?
Darwin's theory of evolution proposes natural selection as the mechanism, not mutations. They added mutations later.
I reject Darwin's theory as well, but still accept evolution(change over time and the possibility of common ancestry).

 

Mungo man is not proven to have originated in Africa. It may prove way more than you admit.

Then we have the origin of the Neanderthal and this massive tree.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

 

Read and learn.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...sil-which-challenged-out-africa-theory-099837

 

Nice try but nothing new there to me.

Do you have something that really is new?

 

This is still the best book on this topic.

It is so good, I could not stop reading. I took it camping when new. This book will change your thinking.

 

Mutations drive natural selection. Beneficial mutations give the individual an advantage in its environment, the individual has a better chance to survive and procreate passing on its mutation.

The mutation has to be beneficial, it cannot be so severe that the individual is sterile, the individual has to survive and procreate, its offspring have to survive and procreate, and so on until the benefit has taken over the species. The process can be derailed at any stage, its success is improbable, and that process has to be repeated endlessly.

And then I wonder what happens when an individual appears which has a different number of chromosomes. Eventually in a species with X chromosomes, an individual will appear with X+2, as the only individual with X+2 chromosomes how is that individual going to reproduce?

I accept that species change over time (but not drastically), I don't accept the idea of a common ancestry for all creatures on earth.

 

It disproves your allegation.

Next!

 

Not actually

and now next

The question is what do you have new that I don't know already?

 

Closer to the first. Sexual reproduction (meiosis) is just a specialized type of cell division which arose long after life itself.

I'm not saying that all life came from just one single-celled organism, but when life got started, single-cells was all there was.

 

Darwin never mentioned mutations in his theory, but didn't know what it was at the time.
Mutations are just change that occurs in your DNA sequence due to copy mistakes or maybe environmental factors like cigarette smoke. Mutations are random, natural selection isn't. You talk about mutations as if it is the primary cause of evolution. Scientist Masatoshi Nei is one who proposes this idea, but how many scientists believes it is mostly mutations?
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution
There are 4 mechanisms of evolutionary change:
1. Mutations
2. Migration
3. Genetic drift
4. Natural Selection