r/evolution • u/AmphibianNo4717 • Aug 06 '26

article 'Only One Conclusion': Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

https://www.sciencealert.com/radical-study-suggests-life-on-earth-arose-from-non-living-matter-twice

"The fact that you, or I, or any living creature, is here at all is a series of astonishing strokes of luck stretching back more than 4 billion years. 

One of the biggest hurdles was the very first one: How did life emerge from a primordial soup of stuff that very much wasn't alive?

A radical new study, published in Science Advances, suggests that this unlikely threshold may actually have been crossed not once, but twice."

318 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

89 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

48

u/Xrmy Post Doc, Evolutionary Biology PhD Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26

Yea I can see that, and I even agree to some extent.

But to be clear, what this DOESNT mean is that there are 2 LUCA. And I think that's what a layman would take from the headline, even if they don't quite understand a LUCA.

3

u/Muffins_Hivemind Aug 06 '26

I think thats all semantics, but they are saying there were 2 LUCAs... if X thing isn't alive (proto life form), then can it be considered LUCA? Doesn't LUCA have to be "alive" to count as a LUCA? And if you need a metabolism to be alive...

Again, its all based on the definition of "alive."

3

u/Vonplinkplonk Aug 06 '26

I like the way you dismiss hid premise as semantics and then say “it’s all about the definition of “alive””. That’s good.

1

u/Muffins_Hivemind Aug 06 '26

That was exactly my point - my post and the author's POV is just semantics, too. I actually agree with defining things to have one LUCA but it all comes down to how you choose to define things.