When life began, in a swamp, bog or some other water\liquid, it started as something simple like bacteria, single celled organism. Then that organism evolved. So were there a few hundred of these evolving simultaneously?
Mitosis is the process by which a eukaryotic cell separates the chromosomes in its cell nucleus into two identical sets in two nuclei. It is generally followed immediately by cytokinesis, which divides the nuclei, cytoplasm, organelles and cell membrane into two cells containing roughly equal shares of these cellular components. Mitosis and cytokinesis together define the mitotic (M) phase of the cell cycle—the division of the mother cell into two daughter cells, genetically identical to each other and to their parent cell. This accounts for approximately 10% of the cell cycle. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...juSvAg&usg=AFQjCNGGL2Lbv4JYL7LJsW1ybQ_9U9FbCw
So then there were a few thousand or maybe millions of pre humans? Then they evolved at the same rate so then there eventually were thousands or millions of humans able to reproduce appearing at the same time?
Far simpler than any bacterium or organism known today. No. They almost certainly did not fit anyone's current definition of separate organisms, even. Gibberish. What are you thinking of as "evolving"? Individual organisms don't evolve - they live, possibly reproduce, usually die eventually.
The complexity of all extant independent organisms known today, along with such secondarily appearing features as DNA information storage, immune system functioning, reproductive integrity, compact metabolic and homeostatic regimes, and so forth. Otherwise known as common sense observation. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Common sense about something you cannot describe, know nothing about and cannot prove it ever existed.
It'd be silly to think that modern day bacteria would have just spontaneously appeared. They are much more complex than their early ancestors, and while the science is still being done, it's not far fetched to rationalize that if we can see how much simpler chemical replicators can exist, we can extrapolate that at some fuzzy point beyond that we could call them "alive". See TalkOrigin's FAQ on abiogenesis.
I've been seeing some conflicting data on this. Dont you think that possibly Archaebacteria may have been the earliest life forms? Or do you not consider them to be bacteria? . http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/E...-archaebacteria-the-oldest-forms-of-life.html My own feeling is that ALL life started from bacteria. Some form of bacteria with no reliance or need for oxygen paved the way for cyanobacteria (envision a blanket of cyanobacteria warming a baby as though in an incubator), being the first producers of oxygen. Now that was one of the key factors or componentds to what would come next. Do you agree with this or can you dig into something deeper, or do you see this as pretext? Is this not a true statement? No bacteria, no life. The reason i mention cyanobacteria (as a secondary or even THE second component) is because they produce oxygen. In an environment devoid of oxygen (perhaps early earth) they would be key (vital component) due to the fact that they are the only bacteria that produce oxygen. Or is than not correct?
? We know quite a bit about modern day bacteria, and other single celled organisms. Enough to know they are far too complex and replete with derived features to be some kind of early stage in the evolution of life. Worse than incorrect, it is wrongheaded - there is no such thing as "the vital component", and living beings had profoundly altered the chemistry of the earth's surface long before the photosynthetic oxygenators could have arisen. http://www.microbiologybytes.com/video/photosynthesis.html
I am certian there are three key components. Now i am also certian the second component is cyanobacter (cyanobacteria). Spreading across a warm body of water. Perhaps in numerous areas of the early earth, which was devoid of oxygen. The cyanobacteria uses the first bacterial source for food due to lack of oxygen. The cyanobacteria being descended from the first Archaic form. It should be noted, for those who have not read the links, that this bacteria requires no oxygen BUT produces oxygen. Now the question is: How unique is Cyanobacteria in form and function, as outlined in the post? Someone answer this question. Secondly, we must come to a definitive conclusion as to what the third component is. Otherwise we cannot continue - and like this early life (without it) we will fail, without it we will fail . For if we cannot answer those two questions the work will remain at a standstill. Stuck in the mud, the morass of darkness forever holding us back like a weight, locked up as though in chains waiting for someone with a key to set us free. But when, when i ask? I will not be discouraged, however. If we get to the original OP we need to discern a close enough number of operators and therein lies the key. How many replicators were present? Therefore we would surmise that given a large enough number the human form emerged and in numerous instances, enough to replicate and advance. I say, (Edit- wrong color) abounded in this early earthly "stew" and produced oxygen the rich environment vital to other life forms and in the process driving the earlier bacteria (Archaic) to extinction. If this is wrong then point out where. Icearura, i have to tell you that you could not be more wrong so i cant see how you can possibly help here. Look at what i previously posted: Is this not a true statement? No bacteria, no life. The answer lies within that statement. Prove that wrong because i can tell you take your water, take take your oxygen and all you have is mud. No bacteria life cannot proceed and it is that simple. Next step is decidedly more difficult. Does not mean we cannot crack it. If you dont answer my questions then you should not participate. It is all coming together now. We need to think outside of what we already know becuase then, and only then, will we see what has been so obvious all along. The producers of early human life, most assuredly, live amongst us...to this ver day. Some live inside of us, thus producing what we know today as the human form.
Then you are in the grip of an extraordinary foolishness. "Cyanobacteria" is a large category of organisms that are not particularly closely related - like "dicotyledons". How unique is dicotyledons in form and function? Thinking so far outside of what you know is not doing you any good. Best to learn a little something, so that you have something to think with and think about.
I started the thread more from what i envisioned in my own mind. The reason was to come in cold and see what happens. Later on i see i made one slight error and corrected it (post #13). I cannot say why that is what i saw, nevertheless it was a slight error, unrelated to what you posted and you didnt pick it up anyway. Afterwards i resorted to google some key terms because you dont agree with what i posted thus far. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59076/title/FOR_KIDS_The_algae_invasion My viewpoint proposes a more rapid expansion. What we would call a generational expansion, one encompassing decades as opposed to millions of years. More like a fast track perspective.
First, of course, we have to define "life". For example, where do viruses, fungi or even prions fit in your scheme of the origin of life, John?
I already did that. One word: BACTERIA A negative side effect, inconsequential to the parameters set forth in the discussion so we should not concern ourselves with that just yet because it is not necessary to reach our final conclusion. Of course we have to take the good with the bad. Good\bad, Joy\pain. Like a cute puppy all of a sudden taking a shit on your rug.
A couple of points... Pardon. I see that you did, in fact, do just that in a later post (rather than the OP): Careful. If you are trying to discuss "LIFE: The beginning", you are flirting with a tautology there... Second... Curious. Why do you classify the organisms that I mentioned as "negative", "inconsequential" and imply that they represent the "bad" to offset the "good" bacteria? From whose perspective? How do you know that some virues / fungi / prions did not predate your bacteria? If they did, and if they are "alive", then it would seem more apropos to discuss their origin rather then that of bacteria - if we are to gain insight into "LIFE: The beginning". (You know, the title of your thread here... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
