-
Did All Life Come From LUCA?
Does it clash with the Quran to say ALL life came from just one cell?
-
65 Replies
-
Did All Life Come From LUCA?
updated 3 years, 5 months ago
5 Members
·
65
Replies
-
Al-Anbiya – 21:30
Arabic
أَوَلَمۡ يَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓاْ أَنَّ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ كَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنَٰهُمَاۖ وَجَعَلۡنَا مِنَ ٱلۡمَآءِ كُلَّ شَىۡءٍ حَىٍّۖ أَفَلَا يُؤۡمِنُونَ
Does this verse ensue common ancestry?
-
This verse is referring to water being a pre-requisite for all life to form and sustain on earth. I don’t find anything linking it with common ancestry in the sense you’re referring to.
-
Then does it clash with the Quran- the concept of all living beings coming from just one cell?
-
Yes! it seems so.
-
But why? The cell could have simply split into eventually a human and from another chain eventually into a lion
-
But from Quran’s perspective, some verses don’t allow for this possibility. And from a scientific stand-point, there are some problems with random mutations as well. This requires some reading beyond academic text, so whenever you find time, do read the book I’d recommended to you in the other thread.
-
-
Indeed all life came from a single cell , and intelligent design based evolution is not contradictory with Quran. What people find puzzeled about evolution is the complexity from such a small ingredients , but they forget the role the environment plays in structuring and guiding the complexity of life.
-
@UmerQureshi what are the Quranic verses that you say contradict with this view?
-
-
-
How is the fact of all life forms sharing DNA differently interpreted by the Quran?
-
-
In the video above I think the question is of a sperate process of humans making , on the question of life from single cell , it is clear that DNA of humans and animals is not that different , we have more than 95 percent of genome similiar to monkey’s , and it shows the origins are similiar i.e life started from single cell , then the process is being debated , according to javed ghamidi the Quran seems to suggest that humans creation was a seperate process and evolution was not a Tree of life but a bush of life.
-
And indeed you would find scientists speak about bush of life rather than tree of life . I will link a video here
-
https://youtu.be/MXrYhINutuI Craig venter is a famous scientist and discovered RNA and human DNA portions
-
I just had a biology lesson and we went over a few proofs.
DNA having the same bases in all life, and humans sharing 98% of DNA with chimpanzees seems to suggest that humans and chimpanzees are closely related in the tree of life in which DNA suggests that all organisms are related snd stem from a single cell.
(I have not read the books yet)
-
Saboor Ahmad is a well known muslim researcher on evaluation, you should listen him, his channel name is Saboor ahmad darwinian delusion
-
Do you have any specific video?
-
You would find this video very interesting
https://youtu.be/xIHMnD2FDeY , scientists are still debating how life started and when , and tree of life , may be bush of life , and components that are useful can be used across those bushes of life and that’s why we see such close genetic materials in organisims .
-
Well Dawkins seemed pretty convinced that it was a tree. There was only one guy who talked about a bush and he gave no real evidence
-
And still, human and chimps would probably still have a common ancestor no?
-
The argument that human and chimps have alot of similarity in thier DNA so therefore they have common ancestor, I think it is just assumption, so i think it’s not a valid argument
-
What is the assumption? If there is a lot of similarities int he genotype of two organisms there must have been some sort of common ancestry. If all life had the same coding- DNA- then they must ALL be related
-
Here is a video link of saboor Ahmad
-
He says the similarities are not due to common ancestry. Then what are they due to? His placental vs marsupial example doesn’t really make sense. Changes in genes can lead to large phenotypical differences due to mutations or adaptations during natural selection. And his idea of the echo location gene- he just said it’s not due to common ancestry- why, what’s the evidence?
-
Well i don’t know why these exist but we can’t say surely that these similarity exist because of common ancestor, again for me it is assumption, and similarity is not enough proof for common ancestor
-
So, all living organisms (all) having the same 4 based DNA is not enough evidence that they all came form a cell that had this base DNA?
-
For me it’s not,
-
For me it’s not, but there is high chances of that possbilty but it’s not the ultimate proof
-
Here is another video
-
there is no problem with same DNA , natural processes use the same functional blocks when they are fit to do so , the problem is with the overall process . The complexity of the life on earth can not be explained by a single process which has every type of random mutations and things that can go wrong , and still it produces these vast able organisims. There must be different blue prints for different organisims , and hence different processes ( a process is not an early phase of eukaryotic cell , it is a complete history from cells to functional blocks to complete Organisims). And one thing that makes the huge doubt about the single tree , is the environment, environments shaped organisims and earth’s environment was so chaotic and changing, a single process can not hold so much change and mutations and still come up with this tightly integrated organisims.
-
We studied the finches example on the Galápagos Islands. The theory is that a common ancestor of finches came and then, according to the different food sources of the different islands completely different species emerges from that one common ancestor. Can’t we trace all life back to a common ancestor that had the same basic DNA which then branched off into many different varied life forms. And these forms would be different due to environment, but mutations from cosmic rays and issues in DNA replication, transcription and translation are also a cause
-
-
The example you described is of speciation and once an organisim , able and already adopted to the environment was there , and then changes in conditions etc produced changes in the organisim. What we are discussing is macro evolution , i.e the dogs into cats , and some monkey like thing to humans , and even very low in the tree , when primitive life forms were there , a single process of changes , with all the complexity we see around us , even in the amount of whole time of universe can not hold up like that .
-
But no one says cats to dogs. They may say that a very very long time ago there was a common ancestor that split into two distinct branches due to some environmental factor or mutation
-
-
This argument is simplification of the whole complexity of the problem by defeating vast number of environmental and natural changes that can work against that particular line of ancestor change , and making the time win . The basic premise of this theory is time , given enough time whatever environments or natural changes are the complexity will be observed by this random genetic single process. And the ultimate test of this will be an artificial or natural process that can produce this tree without stopping .
-
On a small scale what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria?
-
They are complex things , and we can say intelligent too in some sense , so this should not be surprising.
-
Any way to wrap up the whole argument , life on earth is such a complex thing and to give evidence to this or the other explanation to the way it reached till now , we need more than just a single statement about random change and enough time. We need models and real evidence over a long period of time , and such that the complexity we see satisfactorily explained by them.
-
What about the fossil evidence that we can use to trace and build up this real evidence of change over time. (I’m not ready to wrap up just yet 😅)
-
Here are some that are commonly shown. We can see how the bones developed differently and how the pentadactyl evolved differently from the same set of bones.
-
-
fossile records show similiarity , and then we imply that based on similiarity they must be same ancestor and a same process. What it does not show is how ? , ok you will say random mutations in genes , so show me a single model where a single process with fixed gene set can , not only evolves but sustains the way life did on earth. You can ask your teacher to show you a single simulation or model where it holds true . Answer is a single process can not do that , environements shape process and multiple processes can use the same functional blocks overtime , and can have similiarity , but binding them all up into one single narrow process and saying it just magically happens because we have so and so bone in the whale that is in the human , is not an answer , its an analogy.
-
That makes sense. So the point is that to assume that ALL similarities are due to common ancestry is an assumption that isn’t very strong
-
Yes , based on similiarity, backwards reasoning makes it easy to believe the same ancestors and divergences , but you have to answer how ? and give explanation to forward reasoning that there is not a single model of the single random mutation based process where it can generate such complex life and organisims even with time more than till from the birth of universe.
-
-
If there was not a correct but even a plausible model that have been shown to achieve that , we would not have been debating the origins of life right now even amoung top researchers because the mystery would then be solved bottom to up and no room for any doubts.
-
Even if the model is weak though- isn’t it impossible to deny the mathematical DNA similarity between chimps and humans which is then further supported by fossil evidence which points to common ancestry? At least that much is strong from what I’ve researched
-
The model is not only weak , it is wishful thinking . Regarding the fossil evidence and DNA , we have to separate the questions now . If the model is unproven , and a process is observed , until we do not have a correct model we can not copy paste the conclusions of the model on the process. And as explained in our discussion above there is another model that can also explain the fossil evidence and DNA similarity.
-
I have then two queries-
The model has been to a certain extent proven in the building of resistance in a community of bacteria to antibiotics- what would you say to this?
And that the mathematical correlation of DNA shows that these organisms must be related- we just don’t know how (if the model is incorrect). What other conclusion can be made form such similar DNA?
-
-
Regarding antibiotic resistance, a single is so much complex it is an intelligent entity in itself , you can read about whole cell biology in this matter.
And DNA correlations can mean multiple things , and one of it is similiarity In processes. Again the complexity of life and origin of life , has been two biggest questions that show flaw in the conclusion scientists derive from similiar DNA , i.e same tree.
-
But we know the transfer of DNA occurs through reproduction and that’s how families are formed. So it is a reasonable conclusion to say that organisms with similar DNA are related.
Sorry I don’t get what you mean by a ‘single’ is so complicated?
-
-
a single cell i meant . there is nothing special about reproduction , it is a functional block .
-
So- the complexity of the bacteria is irrelevant to the evolution to antibiotic resistance they show.
The only way to transfer DNA is through reproduction. So it is not far fetched to say that organisms with similar DNA are related. Unless there is another way to have extremely similar DNA which would be unreasonable to assume/conclude
-
-
reproduction and DNA transfer through it can happen in both models .
-
What other model? How does it account for the astounding similarity?
-
-
what do you think about random mutation based model of evolution ? . Does in your view the fossil evidence , DNA similiarity, antibiotic resistance etc support that model ? .
-
Antibiotic resistance seems to.
But that is irrelevant since we know how dna is transferred and can draw a conclusion that organisms with similar dna are related
-
-
so the fundamental difference in our opinion is that you think the examples you gave seems to support random mutation model of evolution and hence all are related etc.
My view is since random mutation model of evolution is unproven and in some sense proven wrong ( from complexity modelling etc ) , hence the examples you gave can have different explanations based on correct model .
-
No- my opinion (for now) is that the model is irrelevant. But the similarity of dna can be for no other reason than some sort of relation.
Is there a way for dna to be so similar without organisms being biologically related?
-
-
yes related , but what kind of related , related in the same tree , same ancestor etc , or in some other way like have same dna , becuase process were similiar , and due to this reason the model is relevant in my view so that it can explain this.
-
You can only be related in one way- that’s with a common ancestor since obviously monkeys aren’t our brothers and sisters- so we trace back and logically conclude there must’ve been a common ancestor.
What other explanation could there be?
-
-
you must include the model otherwise all you have is guessing.
-
You have admitted that organisms must be related. There is only one way to be related and that would be common ancestor
-
-
Based on different model it can be different, that is the problem
-
until the correct model we can not say surely about this conclusion . you can take example from physics multiple models can explain the motion of planets, but in some edge cases they break down , and a new model comes which can explain all the edge cases but with different conclusions about the motion , hence untill we do not have correct model, we can not say that current conclusions are perfect.
-
I don’t get it- the relation we find in dna is not under any model. It is simply a fact. It can only be explained afaik by common ancestry. How did this common ancestry result like this? Did all organisms have a common one? I don’t know. But at least with Hunan and chimps we can say they have a common ancestor (no model is needed for this fact)
-
-
it is needed , if correct model concludes this then it can be accepted , if not then no .
-
This discussion has grown too big and and has detracted from the original question. I am closing this thread, but please feel free to start new focused discussions around this topic. Please remember that every discussion must start with an objective question.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
The discussion "Did All Life Come From LUCA?" is closed to new replies.
