Telicmeme: Or can it be viewed as another example of convergent evolution on a molecular level?

Common Descent is the most plausible explanation, but that doesn't mean that during the time of the origin of the Common Ancestor, it was the only variant. Indeed, there is evidence that the Genetic Code is the result of natural selection among competitors.

Freeland et al., Early Fixation of an Optimal Genetic Code, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2000.

And also evidence that the genetic code is not the best of all possible codes, but a balance between adaptation and frozen accident.

Novozhilov et al., Evolution of the genetic code: partial optimization of a random code for robustness to translation error in a rugged fitness landscape, Biology Direct 2007.

This would also argue against convergence.

Telicmeme: Would it be safe to assume that the genetic code arose in a common ancestor of the Common Ancestral Community of Primitive cells?

There are a variety of theories, including that the genetic code may have evolved before a true cell. However, there is evidence that the genetic code also has an evolutionary history.

Brooks et al., Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2002.

Would it be safe to assume that the genetic code arose in a common ancestor of the Common Ancestral Community of Primitive cells? Or can it be viewed as another example of convergent evolution on a molecular level?

Telicmeme: I am looking for an accurate and graphical representation of the tree.

It depends on what you are trying to represent, and that can mean a trade-off with accuracy or completeness. Most people like to see the evolution of animals, particularly vertebrates, even more particularly mammals and hominids. Dhushara (#2) provides this, but with so much clutter as to be difficult to discern the patterns. Other times, we might want to grasp the whole picture at once. The one created with iTOL (#6) gives a lot of detail and uses a cool, modern cladogram to organize the data. But I rather like the Nature Reviews Genetics (#4). It doesn't have the clutter and shows a couple of interesting features, such as the horizontal transfer of mitochondria and chloroplasts from Bacteria to Eukaryota. Here's a rather simple and elegant tree, if you just want to show the basic concept.

None of these diagrams tell the whole story, though. A tree is a particular mathematical pattern called the nested hierarchy. It's amazing that such a simple pattern applies so broadly across so many biological taxa. But nothing in life is ever so simple as that.

There are several problems. The first and most important is that the story is being told by the survivors. For every lineage shown, there are hundreds that went extinct and left no trace.

And there is an awful lot being represented with each node. Many times, when a new niche opens up, there is a rapid radiation of new forms. This happens so fast in geological terms, that it can be very difficult to discern what branched before what. And many of these lineages may also have gone extinct. All that is being represented with just a single dot. (This may not be a problem as long as you realize that from a certain vantage, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end.)

And the node of most interest is at the root of the tree. The universal ancestor, if it existed, may have coexisted with many other organisms that left no descendents. And extensive horizontal evolution may mean a naïve view of descent doesn't properly describe what happened. Various organisms may have lived in communities, trading back and forth until one became predominant or the collective became stabilized into a few forms.

So we might have something like this with several lineages (blue lines) forming a common ancestral population. Or even more boldly. Or with artistic license. In this latter view, the distinction between biological domains is arbitrary and a result of our look-back.

Diagrams are tools for understanding. So, it depends on what you are trying to express which diagram will be best for your purposes. For many uses, a simple Tree of Life can express much of interest and importance (keeping in mind the several caveats).

For fun, here's a cladogram of just dinosaurs.

Could you please comment on the following trees of life and say which one of them best describes the current understanding of the evolution of life. I am looking for an accurate and graphical representation of the tree. Which one do you (or anyone else) think is he best (at present) and could you perhaps point to a better one if you know of any?
1
2
3
4
5
6

Thank you. Much appreciated.

To Schrödinger's cat, you wrote…

Shorter version: Size matters?

The cat's too big. There was no paradox to begin with, a cat would have never been in that situation. The small stuff probably can't do it either, it's just too small and too fast to measure properly… says I.

You are not alone in wanting to deny the reality of superposition. However, the reality is becoming so undeniable inventors are starting to build computers and secure communication devices which based on it.

Try reading think link

To my "Penrose asks why don't real soccer balls act like Buckyballs?"

You responded with…

Mass?

Congratulations. That is what Penrose says.

Penrose says larger objects have more mass and, therefore, more self-induced gravitational energy. Small objects like photons and electrons can stay in superposition for a very long time. Cat sized objects can't. While they can go into superposition, the multiple states self-collapse into one state that we experience in the Macro World (i.e. undergo Objective Reduction "OR") very quickly.

Simple right? I think it is. It is the ramifications that make it unpalatable to some. For example…

Why does conscious observation effect how Quantum OR happens.

Rereading your comment, I'm not sure I answered your question. Dr. Hameroff has this paper on how Orch Or fits in with evolution.

Thanks for that, it does help put a timeline to things. So Orch OR isn't really about origins or even typical ID evolution arguments (flagellum, ATP, DNA etc) - all of that stuff is already in place when Orch OR does its thing. Is that correct? I like it more as an inflationary epoch event. Take care of fine-tuning and all while it's at it. Easier to deal with the retrocausality thing too, with space/time so compact and infinitely curved then suddenly and very quickly stretched out. If, as the paper you linked cites: "consciousness derives from an experiential medium which exists as a fundamental feature of reality." Then why not way before the Cambrian, or even the first life. Like I said already, I'm still trying to get it.

As to Schrödinger's cat. Here is my short version.

Shorter version: Size matters?

The cat's too big. There was no paradox to begin with, a cat would have never been in that situation. The small stuff probably can't do it either, it's just too small and too fast to measure properly… says I.

This is at the base of the arguments between Oleg and I. He won't say Penrose is wrong, He just insists that Penrose's math is an interesting exercise unrelated to reality.

Isn't that an appropriate criticism? My understanding was that he felt you were going beyond what Penrose was saying because you weren't understanding the (mathematical) nuances. Not that I could judge that for myself mind you, but how would you (did you?) respond to the idea that Penrose's model doesn't correspond to reality?

Buckyballs are like soccer balls made up of 60 atoms. They exhibit quantum level behavior such as wave/particle behavior in dual slit experiments. Penrose asks why don't real soccer balls act like Buckyballs?

Mass?

Because there are a lot of large objects in isolation in space that don't exhibit quantum behavior either.

What sort of 'isolated' objects?

He thinks he has the answer. He has been refining this answer for 30 years. I think he is right because all the other alternatives sound like non-answers. "It's too complicated to understand" is usually a dead giveaway.

Complicated is relative I guess.

I appreciate the help, TP.