ChrisL
Diamond Member
The oldest bacteria-like fossils are 3.5 billion years old, so this is the upper estimate for the age of life on the earth. The question is whether at some point before this date a last common ancestor for all forms of life, a "universal ancestor," existed. Over the past 30 years the underlying biochemical unity of all plants, animals and microbes has become increasingly apparent. All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other. It took more than two billion years for this earliest form of life to evolve into the first eukaryotic cell. This gave rise to the last common ancestor of plants, fungi and animals, which lived some 1.6 billion years ago.What's your theory and where's your evidence?One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.
Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.
How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.
The controversies surrounding biological evolution today reflect the fact that biologists were late in accepting evolutionary thinking. One reason for this is that significant modifications of living things are difficult to observe during a lifetime. Darwin never saw evolution taking place in nature and had to rely on evidence from fossils, as well as plant and animal breeding. His idea that the differences observed within a species are transformed in time into differences between species remained the most plausible theory of biodiversity in his time, but there was an awkward lack of direct observations of this process. Today this situation has changed. There are now a number of very striking accounts of evolution in nature, including exceptional work on the finches of the Galapagos Islands--the same animals that first inspired Darwin's work.How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all?
It's totally normal for brainwashed people to ignore the facts and to become angry when their beliefs are challenged. They become frustrated because it is a frightening prospect for them to think that these things they have been taught to believe in since childhood may be nothing but lies/stories and it is also frightening to face your own mortality and to realize that your life indeed DOES have limitations.