LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)

Write4U said:
I have offered many examples of biochemical "common ancestry" in living organisms, but apparently, that is not exactly what LUCA describes.

The video posits that LUCA would not have been the first emergence of life, but was the complex bilaterian organism that became the common ancestral blueprint of all Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic life.

History of life​


and

Body plan​



and

We May Finally Know How The First Cells on Earth Formed​




and

The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on the early Earth system​

Click to expand...
Nonsensical. A bilaterian living in the Ediacaran is 2.5 billion years after LUCA.
 
Write4U said:
All these people must be wrong then. Just another scientific dead end.
Click to expand...
No, they are saying this was an ancestor of the animals.

Don’t forget there was quite a long period of life before multicellular organisms arose, let alone the much later division into plants, fungi and animals. LUCA is the last common ancestor of all current life forms . That includes archaea, bacteria and the eukaryotes, some of which gave rise to plants, fungi and animals.

You have not taken in what LUCA is, in spite of starting a thread on the subject and regaling us with videos about it. You really need to stop posting stuff you have just looked up which you have not even made the effort to understand.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Then this may fit nicely.

Quantum mechanical biology

Moscow State University of M.V.Lomonosov, VMK Faculty,
Chair of supercomputers and quantum informatics January 21, 2015

Abstract


1 Introduction
The main difficulty of biology is that we ourselves are its object. It seems that this loop will not allow biology to become a branch of physics even in perspective. Accumulated and continue to accumulate huge size data on ”what happens in a living being”, but there is no coherent theory to explain ”why this is happening”(see, for example, computer models in [6]). The real explanation must give us the opportunity to build a plausible model of life as we build a model of the processes in inanimate nature, described by differential equations.

more.... https://www.academia.edu/61589196/Quantum_Mechanical_Biology?email_work_card=view-paper
Click to expand...
What does it mean by “there is no coherent theory…?” As data continues to come in, what we think we currently know about biology, is evolving. Why would that be considered “incoherent?” If information keeps expanding on a topic, I wouldn’t call any current theories, “incoherent.” But maybe I’m missing something or how the definition of “coherent” is being applied?
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
What does it mean by “there is no coherent theory…?” As data continues to come in, what we think we currently know about biology, is evolving. Why would that be considered “incoherent?” If information keeps expanding on a topic, I wouldn’t call any current theories, “incoherent.” But maybe I’m missing something or how the definition of “coherent” is being applied?
Click to expand...
I gave my comments on this in post 11. I don’t there is much here to interest us - and it most certainly has nothing to do with the thread topic. It’s a highly speculative attempt at mathematical modelling of evolution, using ideas from QM.Nothing about LUCA, that’s for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top