Universally Conserved DNA Sequences

[jerrywickey]

Universally conserved sequences of DNA strongly suggest a single common early ancestor.

 

Any one disagree?

 

This common ancestor must predate the Cambrian explosion of life, since all life today shares these sequences.

 

Any one disagree?

 

"...New chemistry and genomic tools have revealed that the Shark Bay stromatolites have remarkable biodiversity, with evidence so far of more than 100 species of bacteria. In effect, this suggests that by 3.5 billion years ago Earth was already teeming with diverse microbial life." --ACA deputy director Professor Brett Neilan

 

Earliest life on earth was both anaerobic and diverse.

 

Any one disagree?

 

The common ancestor must have been among these diverse anaerobic organisms.

 

Any one disagree?

 

Now for the question.

 

Could some of this diverse anaerobic early life have utilized some other mechanisms than DNA, promotion, transcription, and protein translation?

 

Is it more likely that a single strain of these anaerobics were the common ancestor of all present day life? Or is all present day life descendant from many of these diverse organisms?

 

If many, and since all present day life utilizes DNA, promotion, transcription, protein translation, should we see remnants of these divers mechanisms?

 

Since we don't observe this, what happened to all this diversity?

 

If DNA, promotion, transcription and protein translation are the only route to life, and if they evolved so early and so rapidly in abiotic conditions, much less conducive to abiogenesis than today's biotic conditions, why has not other sets of conserved sequences arisen within only the last billion years, giving rise to distinct genealogies of life with their own conserved sequences?

 

i.e. Why does not exist more than one set of widely but not universally conserved sequences? The domains Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryota all use the same highly conserved sequences for promotion and transcription. Why do we not see another domain with vary divergent sequences?

 

Either life is very robust, in which case we should see more than one set of conserved sequences for promotion and transcription.

 

Or life is very very special, too special, in which case, we should not be here.

 

Or the conditions which existed on earth were so carefully controlled and fell so perfectly within that thin line between the two conditions above suggesting some extra natural force was involved.

 

Which is it?

 

Jerry

[ecoli]

Actually, the prevailing theory, right now, is that early life existed in an 'RNA world.'

[jerrywickey]

Yes.

 

That is the assumption of my simulation software.

 

But RNA world theory provides a perfect environment for just such diversity. Although we don't see it.!!??

 

Jerry