First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry
More than 150 years ago, Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans. Until now, the theory that makes ladybugs, oak trees, champagne yeast and humans distant relatives has remained beyond the scope of a formal test. Now, a Brandeis biochemist reports in Nature the results of the first large scale, quantitative test of the famous theory that underpins modern evolutionary biology.
The results of the study confirm that Darwin had it right all along. In his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, the British naturalist proposed that, "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form." Over the last century and a half, qualitative evidence for this theory has steadily grown, in the numerous, surprising transitional forms found in the fossil record, for example, and in the identification of sweeping fundamental biological similarities at the molecular level.
Still, rumblings among some evolutionary biologists have recently emerged questioning whether the evolutionary relationships among living organisms are best described by a single "family tree" or rather by multiple, interconnected trees -- a "web of life." Recent molecular evidence indicates that primordial life may have undergone rampant horizontal gene transfer, which occurs frequently today when single-celled organisms swap genes using mechanisms other than usual organismal reproduction. In that case, some scientists argue, early evolutionary relationships were web-like, making it possible that life sprang up independently from many ancestors.
comments powered by Disqus
Dov Henis - 5/16/2010
Embarrassingly obvious TOE, expanding the horizon beyond Darwin And Einstein.
It is spacedistance, NOT spacetime, that does it:
Theory Of Everything Without Strings Attached.
Embarrassingly Obvious And Simple.
See the signature links.
A. First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin's Theory of Universal Common Ancestry
Life's Genesis Was Not Cells But First Gene's Self Reproduction.
Life Is Just Another Mass Format.
B. Since July 5 1997 I have developed and been proposing the following scenario of life's genesis:
* Life's genesis was not cell(s), but the self reproduction of yet uncelled ungenomed gene(s).
* There was NOT any "Pre-History Of Life" evolving in an archaic pre-modern life cell.
* Cells were definitely NOT life's genesis. Cells were products of evolution of Earth's primal organisms, of Earth's first stratum organisms, the RNA genes that have always been and still are running the show of life, the energy-storing biosphere survival, since Earth life's day one.
* A gene's self reproduction was distinctly an evolutionary, enhanced energy constraint event, above the earlier, random, radiated-energy-induced genes formations.
* Every evolutionary step is inherently an event of an enhanced energy constraint.
* Genomes, RNA and DNA, are functional organs evolved by the primary RNA genes. Cell membranes are also functional organs evolved by the primary RNA gene.
* Life is but one of the many many mass formats in the universe, and its evolution is driven as the evolution of all cosmic mass formats, to gain temporary enhanced energy constraint, i.e. to survive as long as possible.
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos
This Theory Of Everything, with definition of evolution, covers also ALL aspects of anthropology. DH
TOE: Religion Or Science?
(Fwd from the-scientist.com:)
[quote=BobTS1162939] This is the Theory Of Everything In A Nutshell (TOEIANS):
Basic construction of the universe: 1. Particles 2. Strings 3. Frames.
II. My comment
A) Since Life is, by our sensory conception, a virtual reality affair, religion is a legitimate virtual reality tool for going through life. But I am not religious. My senses do not become affected by the above TOEIANS. I embarassingly admit that hard as I try I am unable to comprehend the above TOEIANS.
B) My own conception of TOE is scientific, not religious, based strictly on data recorded and observed, of ubiquitous cosmic phenomena. And in presenting my TOE conception I do not deal with mechanisms but with the base processes.
(Comments From The 22nd Century)