Hot answers tagged

8

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are entirely unrelated -- our understanding of selective processes can certainly inform our study of the origin of life -- but I would say that they are quite different projects. One important reason is that evolutionary biologists can use phylogenetic information to reconstruct much of the history of life. For ...


3

If you're willing to accept many orders of magnitude and define life as the Last Universal Common Ancestor. For the rest of this answer, life begins 3.5 Gya with cyanobacterial mats and stromatolites and so on. Genetically the LUCA is dated to around this time, which matches the fossil record and everything's great. The LUCA can't have sprung from ...


2

I think it's a mistake to assume that there is such a point. All plausible seeming models of abiogenesis currently under consideration involve evolutionary processes long before they reach the stage we'd consider alive. Evolution will occur whenever there is (a) replication-with-error and (b) selection (simplifying slightly). This is the case with a ...


1

Our understanding of how life began on earth has indeed advanced substantially since Haldane, Oparin, Miller, and Urey. To learn about the latest ideas, I can't think of a better place to start than this excellent video series with Nobel Laureate Jack Szostack, who is currently doing some of the leading work on the subject.


1

This question has actually been covered (although not to the complete extent of evolutionary history) by Richard Dawkins in his book The Ancestor's Tale. He gives the following estimates of LUCA time and generations: Monkeys and apes: 40MY(3M) Mammals: 180MY(120M) Reptiles: 310MY(170M) Ray finned fish: 440MY(195M) Sharks, hagfish and lampreys: ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible