All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
sciencenews.org
All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#2But even more likely was single-ancestor with some gene mingling. So a bit of both.
Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy going on here as this is a "degree of" question and not an either-or question (If I understood the article correctly)
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#3[deleted]
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#4We could call her Bacteria Zero and build a whole religion around her life and times...
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#5But even more likely was single-ancestor with some gene mingling. So a bit of both. Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy going on here as this is a "degree of" question and not an either-or question (If I understood the article correctly)
No, it is two different dichotomies. One is one-ancestor vs. multi-ancestor, with the first being correct. The second is no gene transfer between descendants vs. gene transfer between descendants, with the second being correct. So there was only one species to begin with, but then later, after it diverged into multiple species, those branches traded genes back and forth.
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#6We could call her Bacteria Zero and build a whole religion around her life and times...
Surely Bacterium Zero?
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#7But even more likely was single-ancestor with some gene mingling. So a bit of both. Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy going on here as this is a "degree of" question and not an either-or question (If I understood the article correctly)
No, it is two different dichotomies. One is one-ancestor vs. multi-ancestor, with the first being correct. The second is no gene transfer between descendants vs. gene transfer between descendants, with the second being correct. So there was only one species to begin with, but then later, after it diverged into multiple species, those branches traded genes back and forth.
"So there was only one species to begin with"
The idea that all life shares a common ancestor does not mean that there was only one species to begin with. There could have been many species who contributed genetic material to a common ancestor, and then eventually died out. The article is poorly written because it doesn't make it clear whether the gene swapping occurred before or after the common ancestor.
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#8But even more likely was single-ancestor with some gene mingling. So a bit of both. Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy going on here as this is a "degree of" question and not an either-or question (If I understood the article correctly)
No, it is two different dichotomies. One is one-ancestor vs. multi-ancestor, with the first being correct. The second is no gene transfer between descendants vs. gene transfer between descendants, with the second being correct. So there was only one species to begin with, but then later, after it diverged into multiple species, those branches traded genes back and forth.
Nitpick: You say "correct" where the more precise phrasing would be something like "far more probable".
Re: All Present-day Life Arose From A Single Ancestor
#9We could call her Bacteria Zero and build a whole religion around her life and times...
Deus Ex Bacteria. Shirley, this ancestor could be referred to as "God".