geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
I am of the understanding that in the general topic of genetic evolution that all present organisms can trace their ancestry back to a single "most basic organism", Using the 'tree structure: as per Darwilnetc, I can see the logic in this.
Please tell me why a parallel "muttiple first organism" system would not work. What I mean is instead of a single organism evolving over time into all the complexity we see today in organic life forms we assume all life forms originated from a unigue first organsm, unique to one species that is. What is the error in assuming many first organsims all similar but different. Monkeys are different from humans not because of branching a few million years ago with the differences in organism being merely a record of the evolutionary dynamics of different but similar organisms. These unique orhaisms started from the get go at t = 0 with a lightning strike or oher workable stimulus.. If I remember some monkeys and humans differ in cytochrome C (sic) by one amino acid? Theoretically, monkeys and humans could have started very similar to each such that the evolved differences have not erased the similarities.
This model to me seem statistically more probable a sucessfull survival system compared to the "first organsism", a single entity that requires the maintenance of a strictly limited spectrum of a number of external or environmental parameters, temperature, pressure, ph, proper presence and mix of building blocks to assure statitisical completion of stable organisms. All of this requires the next, or some next generation of evolved organsim to be superior regarding survival attributes than the previous for the new line to ultimately domination of the "weaker" unevolved entities by the advanced sentities if I am not mistaken. Further, I would think it would be difficult to distinguish between the single organism model and the multple organism model.
So what is wrong with a "parallel" begining of huge numbers and varieties of starting blocks organisms simmering in the 'etherial stew' and where only "the fittest survive"?
Geistkiesel
Please tell me why a parallel "muttiple first organism" system would not work. What I mean is instead of a single organism evolving over time into all the complexity we see today in organic life forms we assume all life forms originated from a unigue first organsm, unique to one species that is. What is the error in assuming many first organsims all similar but different. Monkeys are different from humans not because of branching a few million years ago with the differences in organism being merely a record of the evolutionary dynamics of different but similar organisms. These unique orhaisms started from the get go at t = 0 with a lightning strike or oher workable stimulus.. If I remember some monkeys and humans differ in cytochrome C (sic) by one amino acid? Theoretically, monkeys and humans could have started very similar to each such that the evolved differences have not erased the similarities.
This model to me seem statistically more probable a sucessfull survival system compared to the "first organsism", a single entity that requires the maintenance of a strictly limited spectrum of a number of external or environmental parameters, temperature, pressure, ph, proper presence and mix of building blocks to assure statitisical completion of stable organisms. All of this requires the next, or some next generation of evolved organsim to be superior regarding survival attributes than the previous for the new line to ultimately domination of the "weaker" unevolved entities by the advanced sentities if I am not mistaken. Further, I would think it would be difficult to distinguish between the single organism model and the multple organism model.
So what is wrong with a "parallel" begining of huge numbers and varieties of starting blocks organisms simmering in the 'etherial stew' and where only "the fittest survive"?
Geistkiesel