Hypothesis for Evolutionary Biology

It's weak, in my opinion. The DNA of all species, even those that are the most primitive, including mitochondria that exist inside eukaroyotic cells possess the same DNA structure that holds the capability to carry heritable information. In addition, the DNA of all living things use the four nucleotides: cytosine, thymine, cytosine, and  guanine (nitrogenous bases), which leads me to believe we are all derived from a single ancestor.

I didn't fully articulate my hypothesis. I am proposing that this "same DNA structure" will appear in all these independent original organisms that form during the same time period. There was no single original quark where others derived from. There was no single original gluon, lepton, antilepton, proton or atom either, where all others derived from. When certain conditions emerged in the early universe, numerous quarks formed. Then numerous protons. Then numerous atoms. And so forth.

In my hypothesis the first living organisms would be like atoms and their the smaller components would be like subatomic particles. A specific condition on earth emerged and numerous independent original living organisms manifested all with the same components (DNA, genetic code, proteins, etc.).

Yeah, that's definitely possible, but what prompted you to believe this? So, the primitive nucleotides of the very first cells spontaneously evolved in different parts of the earth. The premise is used by astrobiologists to rationalize alien life on far away earth-like planets.

So my hypothesis has been put forth? I'm not surprised, as it seems not only plausible, but likely.

What prompted me to believe this you say. Well, I'm going to have to get a little philosophical; I hope you don't mind. Most theists believe the first humans were created by god. Theists who accept evolution would say god created the first life form then did something special to make us (gave us souls). Many, if not most, atheists believe life likely (not certainly) formed on earth by accident. I myself am an agnostic/deist (of a certain sort). I believe (but am not certain) that the universe was designed by intelligent agency. What that agent(s) is I have no clue.

Einstein was an agnostic/deist (or a certain sort) as well. He presupposed the existence of a "superior reasoning power" as he was developing his theories. He would say, if I am god how would I create a universe, etc.

The universe is governed by a limited set of rules/forces that exhibit profound order, regularity and harmony in the way they function together to produce highly creative effects upon matter/energy. Using the language of mathematics we describe the way these rules/forces manipulate and direct matter/energy and arrive with precise, logical, elegant laws.

As I stated prior, stars, planets, moons, blackholes, atoms, subatomic particles, elements, etc., are inevitable consequences of these governing rules/forces and they exist in the same manner all throughout the universe, wherever we observe. Whether you presuppose a designing agent(s) or not that crafted these rules/forces when pondering how life emerged, it is still reasonable to assume that life too is an inevitable consequence of rules/forces as well when considering all these other forms of matter/energy.

If it's true that life is an inevitable consequence of governing rules/forces that doesn't mean that the universe was necessarily designed. However, in my opinion this would be circumstantial evidence that favors design.

If my hypothesis is true then life all throughout the universe would have the same foundational biological components. If we were to discover life on other planets and confirmed this to be true that would be empirical evidence that supports my hypothesis.

Here's the interesting part, revo74, how do you plan on testing this hypothesis? What evidence are you going to collect. I was hoping that when I asked you about what prompted this hypothesis, you'd provide some evidence that you found or a way to test this prediction. The Stanley Miller experiment of 1953 that showed how the building blocks of life could have been duplicated in conditions somewhat similar to those of early earth's conditions may have happened all over planet. But the problem is, how do you go about proving this without using metaphysical analysis.

Testing my hypothesis or any other hypothesis regarding abiogensis is a challenging undertaking. The Miller-Urey experiment you cited took place over 60 years ago. I think a series of modern day experiments utilizing varying conditions in an attempt to emulate the early earth when life first spawned, with present day technology and scientific knowledge would be a good first step. These experiments may or are occurring as we speak.

I know the ASU origins project led by Lawrence Krauss is doing good work. Paul Davies in particular, who is part of the project, is specifically leading a team working on the origin of life.

When I made this post I acknowledged I was a laymen with a hypothesis. My goal was just to find out from someone with more knowledge than I if my hypothesis was plausible, has been put forth and whether it has gained any traction.

Hope I added enough insight for you to move forward with this idea.

Personal question: Why would a laymen be hypothesizing about the origins of life?

I appreciate your responses.

I'm fascinated with many areas of science and metaphysics.

To answer your hypothesis, I would say even evolution is just a hypothesis. Morphological similarity, the genetic similarity may prove that evolution happened, also play as a proof of simultaneous origin. Since you are layman you might have adopted an idea from the bible. Yet I am not going to oppose or accept it. The truth is what we don't know yet. We will never know that. Science is just an asymptote, it always keeps us near truth but never touches that.

http://www.helpwritinganessay.com/