Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And we know it happened once and only once on Earth. Never before and never since.
If even true, it's not hard to explain. The available organic material is finite. It would make sense that the first successful model would flourish at the expense of all other models, which would explain both why one model came to dominate and why it still dominates.
Not dominate. Not predominate or preeminent. Organic life, of singular origin, is the ONLY life. Within that life we see dominate life forms...in certain habitats certain species do predominate. But they don't scour that habitat clean of every other life form.
It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
link?I find it incredibly imposable that all mammals came from saber toothed moles
Why would you think that? It's a mathematical certainty (and supported by all the evidence) that all mammals share a common ancestor. And I don't mean "one species", I mean one individual of one species.
Most recent common ancestor - ISOGG Wikilink?I find it incredibly imposable that all mammals came from saber toothed moles
Why would you think that? It's a mathematical certainty (and supported by all the evidence) that all mammals share a common ancestor. And I don't mean "one species", I mean one individual of one species.
It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
It's likely the conditions that gave rise to life, a primordial soup of amino acids and some type of lipid-like substance, possibly near a volcanic vent or even in shallow water on the surface with lightning possibly playing a part, single living cells likely were sparked trillions of times in the right conditions with the vast majority not being viable to survive with DNA or RNA that replicated itself. But a relatively small number did, divided, and life was off and running. It is a misnomer to lead people to believe it was a single event with one cell.
And then it took another 2.5 billion years for multi-celled organisms to evolve.
Most recent common ancestor - ISOGG Wikilink?I find it incredibly imposable that all mammals came from saber toothed moles
Why would you think that? It's a mathematical certainty (and supported by all the evidence) that all mammals share a common ancestor. And I don't mean "one species", I mean one individual of one species.
In fact, if you took any two individuals on Earth (extant or extinct, and of any species), they share a common ancestor that was one individual of one species.
It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
It's likely the conditions that gave rise to life, a primordial soup of amino acids and some type of lipid-like substance, possibly near a volcanic vent or even in shallow water on the surface with lightning possibly playing a part, single living cells likely were sparked trillions of times in the right conditions with the vast majority not being viable to survive with DNA or RNA that replicated itself. But a relatively small number did, divided, and life was off and running. It is a misnomer to lead people to believe it was a single event with one cell.
And then it took another 2.5 billion years for multi-celled organisms to evolve.
Absolutely not. You must be reading decades old science books.
It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
It's likely the conditions that gave rise to life, a primordial soup of amino acids and some type of lipid-like substance, possibly near a volcanic vent or even in shallow water on the surface with lightning possibly playing a part, single living cells likely were sparked trillions of times in the right conditions with the vast majority not being viable to survive with DNA or RNA that replicated itself. But a relatively small number did, divided, and life was off and running. It is a misnomer to lead people to believe it was a single event with one cell.
And then it took another 2.5 billion years for multi-celled organisms to evolve.
Absolutely not. You must be reading decades old science books.
Yet it only happened one time
It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
It's likely the conditions that gave rise to life, a primordial soup of amino acids and some type of lipid-like substance, possibly near a volcanic vent or even in shallow water on the surface with lightning possibly playing a part, single living cells likely were sparked trillions of times in the right conditions with the vast majority not being viable to survive with DNA or RNA that replicated itself. But a relatively small number did, divided, and life was off and running. It is a misnomer to lead people to believe it was a single event with one cell.
And then it took another 2.5 billion years for multi-celled organisms to evolve.
Absolutely not. You must be reading decades old science books.
He's pretty close, actually. Now we think it took 2.9 billion years for the first multi-cellular organisms to evolve from single-celled organisms.
.It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
It's likely the conditions that gave rise to life, a primordial soup of amino acids and some type of lipid-like substance, possibly near a volcanic vent or even in shallow water on the surface with lightning possibly playing a part, single living cells likely were sparked trillions of times in the right conditions with the vast majority not being viable to survive with DNA or RNA that replicated itself. But a relatively small number did, divided, and life was off and running. It is a misnomer to lead people to believe it was a single event with one cell.
And then it took another 2.5 billion years for multi-celled organisms to evolve.
Absolutely not. You must be reading decades old science books.
Go play with your blocks.
Actually it just means the fittest survived. But it’s neat to think of the lucky part
It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
It's likely the conditions that gave rise to life, a primordial soup of amino acids and some type of lipid-like substance, possibly near a volcanic vent or even in shallow water on the surface with lightning possibly playing a part, single living cells likely were sparked trillions of times in the right conditions with the vast majority not being viable to survive with DNA or RNA that replicated itself. But a relatively small number did, divided, and life was off and running. It is a misnomer to lead people to believe it was a single event with one cell.
And then it took another 2.5 billion years for multi-celled organisms to evolve.
Absolutely not. You must be reading decades old science books.
He's pretty close, actually. Now we think it took 2.9 billion years for the first multi-cellular organisms to evolve from single-celled organisms.
That isn’t the origin of life. That’s the origin of more advanced forms of life. It is the origin of life I am speaking of.
Eukaryotes and then multicellular life are amazing advances. But still directly descended from that first cell.
Yet it only happened one time
You keep saying that, yet we could not possibly know the truth of that.
Yet it only happened one time
You keep saying that, yet we could not possibly know the truth of that.
As far as we know. The evidence we see says “one time”. Maybe there will be evidence to the contrary but in the meantime science doesn’t deal in speculative theories except to prove or disprove them.
Absence of evidence may seem to not be evidence of absence. But in this case it is...until evidence is found.
Yet it only happened one time
You keep saying that, yet we could not possibly know the truth of that.
As far as we know. The evidence we see says “one time”. Maybe there will be evidence to the contrary but in the meantime science doesn’t deal in speculative theories except to prove or disprove them.
Absence of evidence may seem to not be evidence of absence. But in this case it is...until evidence is found.
I dont agree that the evidence says "exactly one time". It says "at least one time". Saying "exactly one time" is FAR more speculative than saying "at least one time". On top of that, we have not and may not ever have done an exhaustive search of the evidence. We may never find other types of life here (past, present, or future), and we may not recognize it as life if we did find it.
Yet it only happened one time
You keep saying that, yet we could not possibly know the truth of that.
As far as we know. The evidence we see says “one time”. Maybe there will be evidence to the contrary but in the meantime science doesn’t deal in speculative theories except to prove or disprove them.
Absence of evidence may seem to not be evidence of absence. But in this case it is...until evidence is found.
I dont agree that the evidence says "exactly one time". It says "at least one time". Saying "exactly one time" is FAR more speculative than saying "at least one time". On top of that, we have not and may not ever have done an exhaustive search of the evidence. We may never find other types of life here (past, present, or future), and we may not recognize it as life if we did find it.
Well, since Im not trying to argue, and to keep the focus, i'll say "all the life that we see and can know and have ever discovered is descended from one single point in time. Isnt that amazing?"
Yet it only happened one time
You keep saying that, yet we could not possibly know the truth of that.
As far as we know. The evidence we see says “one time”. Maybe there will be evidence to the contrary but in the meantime science doesn’t deal in speculative theories except to prove or disprove them.
Absence of evidence may seem to not be evidence of absence. But in this case it is...until evidence is found.
I dont agree that the evidence says "exactly one time". It says "at least one time". Saying "exactly one time" is FAR more speculative than saying "at least one time". On top of that, we have not and may not ever have done an exhaustive search of the evidence. We may never find other types of life here (past, present, or future), and we may not recognize it as life if we did find it.
Well, since Im not trying to argue, and to keep the focus, i'll say "all the life that we see and can know and have ever discovered is descended from one single point in time. Isnt that amazing?"
Yes!
And while it is amazing, it does make sense, in light of both evolution and abiogenesis. The most efficient, flourishing, self-replicating model of life would grow in population exponentially, and it would do so at the expense of all other existing models. And it could even be the case that, when this model of life emerged, any other types which had formed might have either already been selected out of existence or into a critically low population state.
And the earlier we place the formation of life on this planet, the easier it becomes to believe that other types of life also quickly formed.
Why would it be so different?
How would you know? And did it start here or was it, started here by other life?It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?
