Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? (Temple of Darwin at it again...LOL!!!)

New Scientist ^ | October 19, 2009 | Nick Lane

[GodGunsGuts]

Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?

--snip--

The picture painted by Russell and Martin is striking indeed. The last common ancestor of all life was not a free-living cell at all, but a porous rock riddled with bubbly iron-sulphur membranes that catalysed primordial biochemical reactions...

[ElayneJ]

“Not just fruit flies evolving to be better adapted to their environments, but ALSO fruit flies evolving into a new species that could no longer reproduce with the ancestral species; the kind of evolution from one species to another that you incorrectly asserted had never been observed”

hmm...let’s see if I can say this in a different way. Two fruit flies may represent different species, but - here go - a fruit fly is a fruit fly. You said it before, and you’re absolutely right.

But the evolutionary theory goes much farther than that, does it not? In order for the theory to hold true, intergenus evolution must occur as well, right? Has it occurred?

“Ever see a mud-skipper or a lungfish? Do you think they are at a survival disadvantage for having forelimbs capable of terrestrial movement?”

Not sure that I’ve seen these, but I know of them. I believe they both are fish with legs. Unsettling, I would think, but that’s beside the point. They’re fish. They started out as fish and they remain fish. Or - is it still in the morphing stage?

In any case, my point was this: As the fish’s lungs remain in the development stage, it cannot use them to breath on land. So, why wouldn’t the lungs stop in their development, as the lungs would represent a nonuseful feature that couldn’t help - and may hinder - the fish’s efficiency? Until the lungs are functional, they would be a liability rather than an asset. So unless the lungs appear quickly (as in the “poofing” process! :)), seems that they would simply disappear.

But more than that - Why would the fish start to develop lungs and legs in the first place? If the fish is existing in the water, it wouldn’t need the lungs and legs. How does selection or adaptability fit into this picture? What’s the “motivation” for the fish to change environments and adapt elsewhere?

[allmendream]

The lungfish lives in rivers and lakes that have the unfortunate habit (for most fish) of drying up.

An amphibian lives part of its life in the water, like a fish, and then crawls up on land for its adult stage, its fins becoming limbs. It is, once again, not a “morphing stage” that amphibians are in. They are amphibians. But to see them accomplish it in one life cycle and think the same thing couldn't have occurred over many thousands is ignorance personified.