The first life

Hiquote :Proto-life can't compete with real-life, and so it never gets a chance.Maybe
However
let's be not so radical about it
(no "laws " in biology ?--> these are all heuristic rules of thumb?
all have exeptions ? )I propose
" proto-life forming NOW is not found or observed because it is immediately " eaten "( in the "building blocks "stadium ) by the present "overpopulation" on this planet ? all competing for the
limited resources "and related to this can someone answer some questions ?Didn't Dr Carl Woese , suggest , that "abiogenesis processes" at least produced /resulted in three different LUCA ' s ?
iow that at the very bottom of life on earth there are three
differnt ancestors each at the origin of three different lines of descent ?prof . L. Margulis proposed 4 protocellular ( bacterial ) components taking
roles in the " merging " symbiogenesis proces creating the eukaryotic cell ( SET theory , i believe ? ) .Where these descendants of four luca's ?ALSO
--> Why should "ALIFE " things be restricted to only one kind of set-up /" approaches " or "build - up " mechanisms and the elements of living stuff C H O N P ...---> there are aerobic / photosynthese using bacteria ,but also
all "kinds" of extremophiles and deep- sea bacteria using other
sources of "biochemical energy " to drive their metabolism ....--->Doesn't astrobiology suggest that 'maybe " several other chemical pathways ( and starting materials ) could be involved ?Thanks

OopsSorry
Forgot to post some links--->
New Theory of Cell Evolution Rejects Single-Ancestor Doctrine - Scientific American--->
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/0617evoltion.html

HiQUOTE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
happened exactly ONCE in the history of the world (as the theory of common descent requires) and never again,
---------------------------------------------------------------------1.-
a) Where did you find that "all above stated " is "required " by the theory of Common descent ?
what is your reference ( at least you did look for some literature I hope ? ) or what is your "hint/key " for this claim ?
would you mind to elaborate ? or
is it just a mere suggestion ? a blind guess ?
b) what are you introducing here ( what is your purpose : do you want to make an argument out of it ? ) ---> some strawman ?2.- The theory of common descent ( one of the pillars of some ToE , you seem to say ) doesn't say anything about the occurence of the "first " living germ(s) or ultimate ancestorsuch as
--> did this " thing " result from chemical complex processes ?
--> was it created ?
--> was it a "seed "coming from somewhere out of the cosmos ?
---> or some "gene soup " from which some occuring " fat enrobed " droplets freely pick-uped the needed "floating around" components and ingredients ( No shit like " ... rocks turning into bacteria you know..." )
Why Just pick up what YOU like from all that ... you're free to do so---> But as soon as the so- called LUCA- thing is there , was present on this planet ---> it sure started a line of descendance
( this is trivial , )
We"dd better not forget that4.- How many "results " of ongoing abiogenesis processes "appeared " --> before the dominating ones occured as the surviving LUCA ( or luca's )?____ oh yes , about the used term "results " above =
( hypothesised )particular chemical pathways and processes of very complex auto-catalytic nature for example ---> see the suggestive BELOUSOV ZHABOTINSKY SYSTEMS____ did occur and produce results(outputs ) ____Also
---> What " sample " from these "production-lines "( continuum of processes ) could be called ALIVE ?
Does it make a difference ?NEVER mind =
as soon as LUCA ( LAST UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTOR ) appeared descendance ( and organic-replicator evolution ) started ...And I have some questions too for you" If all life on this planet went extinct
Could it reappear anew by abiogenesis ?
and
Why should life be restricted to our planet ?
Even in the interstellar space they did find evidences of the
presence of " organic " chemicals
I think that " everywhere , where the conditions are favourable
and the raw materials present live WILL occur --> naturally "of course IF , and IF and IF and IF ....By the way abiogenesis is now part of "exobiology "
growing into a interdisciplinary specialised field of its own
ASTROBIOLOGY
( ah yes the trick with " matian life " I hear creationist chuckle )SO
Let's stick to the ( already complex ) field of "evolutionary biology " , if we want to discuss the consequences of "common descent" -concept ( I even doubt if the so called " theoretical " biology is something more then a " wooly " reappearance of philosophy of biology ) and let's simply ACCEPT the ( necessary ) presence of LUCA or LUCA's as the initial spark and start of lines of descendance of living things ... without speculating how it occured ( if you want to discuss that you need a very advanced expertise in chemics and complexity systems theorie(s) so start studying and informing yourself ... )