Major insights into evolution of life reported

Aug 19, 2009
Major insights into evolution of life reported
Molecular biologist James A. Lake from the University of California at Los Angeles' Center for Astrobiology.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Humans might not be walking the face of the Earth were it not for the ancient fusing of two prokaryotes -- tiny life forms that do not have a cellular nucleus. UCLA molecular biologist James A. Lake reports important new insights about prokaryotes and the evolution of life in the Aug. 20 advance online edition of the journal Nature.

Endosymbiosis refers to a cell living within another cell. If the cells live together long enough, they will exchange genes; they merge but often keep their own cell membranes and sometimes their own genomes.

Lake has discovered the first exclusively prokaryote endosymbiosis. All other known endosymbioses have involved a eukaryote — a cell that contains a nucleus. Eukaryotes are found in all multicellular forms of life, including humans, animals and plants.

"This relationship resulted in a totally different type of life on Earth," said Lake, a UCLA distinguished professor of molecular, cell and and of . "We thought eukaryotes always needed to be present to do it, but we were wrong."

In the Nature paper, Lake reports that two groups of prokaryotes — actinobacteria and clostridia — came together and produced "double-membrane" prokaryotes.

"Higher life would not have happened without this event," Lake said. "These are very important organisms. At the time these two early prokaryotes were evolving, there was no oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Humans could not live. No oxygen-breathing organisms could live."

The oxygen on the Earth is the result of a subgroup of these double-membrane prokaryotes, Lake said. This subgroup, the , used the sun's energy to produce oxygen through photosynthesis. They have been tremendously productive, pumping oxygen into the atmosphere; we could not breathe without them. In addition, the double-membrane prokaryotic fusion supplied the mitochondria that are present in every human cell, he said.

"This work is a major advance in our understanding of how a group of organisms came to be that learned to harness the sun and then effected the greatest environmental change the Earth has ever seen, in this case with beneficial results," said Carl Pilcher, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, headquartered at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., which co-funded the study with the National Science Foundation.

"Along came these organisms — the double-membrane prokaryotes — that could use sunlight," Lake said. "They captured this vast energy resource. They were so successful that they have more genetic diversity in them than all other prokaryotes.

"We have a flow of genes from two different organisms, clostridia and actinobacteria, together," he said. "Because the group into which they are flowing has two membranes, we hypothesize that that was an endosymbiosis that resulted in a double membrane. It looks as if a single-membrane organism has engulfed another. The genomes are telling us that the double-membrane prokaryotes combine sets of genes from the two different organisms."

For this study, Lake has looked back more than 2.5 billion years. He conducted an analysis of the genomics of the five groups of prokaryotes.

Lake is interested in learning how every organism is related.

"We all are interested in our ancestors," he said. "A friend at UC Berkeley, Alan Wilson, was the first person to collect DNA from large numbers of people around the world. He showed that we are all related to a woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. Some in the media called her Eve. He called her the Lucky Mother, the mother of us all.

"In our field, we have enormous amounts of data but cannot make sense of it all. Endosymbiosis allows us to start to understanding things; it tells us that many genes are exchanged.

"We have been overlooking how important cooperation is," Lake said. "If two prokaryotes get together, they can change the world. They restructured the atmosphere of the Earth. It's a message that evolution is giving us: Cooperation is a way to get ahead."

Actinobacteria have an unusual DNA composition, with a very high amount of "G" and "C" nucleotides — chemicals whose patterns carry the data required for constructing proteins. Nucleotides are designated by the letters G (guanine), C (cytosine), A (adenine) and T (thymine); the sequence of nucleotides serves as a chemical code.

Some actinobacteria are pathogens, including ones that cause tuberculosis and leprosy. Some clostridia can photosynthesize, which no other single-membrane prokaryote does. Photosynthesis may have been developed in clostridia.

Double-membrane prokaryotes include the pathogens that cause ulcers, as well as the organisms that led to the creation of the chloroplasts that are in all green plants and which make plant growth possible.

Source: University of California - Los Angeles

Explore further: Fungus deadly to AIDS patients found to grow on trees

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Molecular Biologists Uproot the Tree of Life

Sep 09, 2004

One of science's most popular metaphors — the "tree of life," with its evolutionary branches and roots, showing groups of bacteria on the bottom and multicellular animals on the higher branches — turns out to be a misnomer, ...

Analysis knocks down theory on origin of cell structure

Apr 22, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Understanding how living cells originated and evolved into their present forms remains a fundamental research area in biology, one boosted in recent years by the introduction of new tools ...

Map of life on Earth could be used on Mars

May 13, 2005

A geologist from Washington University in St. Louis is developing new techniques to render a more coherent story of how primitive life arose and diverged on Earth - with implications for Mars. Carrine Bla ...

Biological electron transfer captured in real time

Mar 03, 2008

Two research teams led by Dr. Michael Verkhovsky and Prof. Mårten Wikström of the Institute of Biotechnology of the University of Helsinki have for the first time succeeded in monitoring electron transfer by Complex I in ...

Recommended for you

How plant cell compartments change with cell growth

4 hours ago

A research team led by Kiminori Toyooka from the RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science has developed a sophisticated microscopy technique that for the first time captures the detailed movement of ...

Plants can 'switch off' virus DNA

4 hours ago

A team of virologists and plant geneticists at Wageningen UR has demonstrated that when tomato plants contain Ty-1 resistance to the important Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV), parts of the virus DNA ...

A better understanding of cell to cell communication

5 hours ago

Researchers of the ISREC Institute at the School of Life Sciences, EPFL, have deciphered the mechanism whereby some microRNAs are retained in the cell while others are secreted and delivered to neighboring ...

A glimpse at the rings that make cell division possible

6 hours ago

Forming like a blown smoke ring does, a "contractile ring" similar to a tiny muscle pinches yeast cells in two. The division of cells makes life possible, but the actual mechanics of this fundamental process ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gopher65
3 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2009
Ah, one of the last significant "missing links" has been found:). Not many left to go, now.
Vito
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2009
This article sounded as if Lake did some actual experiments but if you will trace the actual paper, he is just presenting a hypothesis.
visual
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2009
And it's a hypothesis that, in a more general form and without specifying what types of prokaryotes were the first to combine, has been known and popular since forever
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2009
And it's a hypothesis that, in a more general form and without specifying what types of prokaryotes were the first to combine, has been known and popular since forever


It has been hypothesized and popular for forever but until recently we had never observed prokaryotes in the process of combination.
ecrouch
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2009
At the end of the day, Science still hangs its hat on the notion that life came from nothing. Nothing came together with nothing and formed something? I wonder what advancements might take place if we presuppose a Creator instead of an impossible chance?
Velanarris
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2009
At the end of the day, Science still hangs its hat on the notion that life came from nothing. Nothing came together with nothing and formed something? I wonder what advancements might take place if we presuppose a Creator instead of an impossible chance?

There would be no advancements as what happened during the dark ages when religious dogma pre-empted science because if you should have it God will provide.

Dependence on a Creator aspect results in pathological laziness and appeal to that alleged power.
thales
5 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2009
ecrouch, you're not the Heisman trophy guy are you?

Anyway, why would you want to presuppose anything? Isn't it simpler to presuppose nothing? The set of "not nothing" is infinitely larger than the set of "nothing" - in other words, we could presuppose the Matrix, a group of magical unicorns, a mischievous but ultra-powerful monkey named Jimbo - you get the idea. The problem is that none of these presuppositions get us anywhere with regard to learning about how life formed.

In general, the problem with presuppositions is that they get in the way of learning.
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2009
At the end of the day, Science still hangs its hat on the notion that life came from nothing. Nothing came together with nothing and formed something? I wonder what advancements might take place if we presuppose a Creator instead of an impossible chance?


For the sake of discussion I would like to presuppose a Creator.

If a Creator created the universe, how did they do it?

What processes were involved?
ecrouch
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2009
Nope, different Eric Crouch. :) I agree with everything you said, but the majority of Scientist do suppose a big-bag and/or evolution. The article above is good proof of that. So, research sometimes, is slanted to prove a theory "right" instead of "wrong". I'm mis-quoting someone here, but the gist of the quote says, "we should study to prove our theories wrong." If they pass our scrunity then we have a validated theory. Now the problem I see is that we rule out a creator right from the start. Look at the comment above yours. Valnarris won't ever take that into consideration; that's a presupposition. Who made the keyboard you're typing on? How do you know it was made by someone? The creation is evidence of a Creator.
ecrouch
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2009
SteveS, good question. If true, then how can I, as something merely created, hope to fully understand the mind of the entity that created me?
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2009
SteveS, good question. If true, then how can I, as something merely created, hope to fully understand the mind of the entity that created me?

Do you understand your parents? Just expound upon the analogy.

I couldn't understand what my parents were thinking until I grew up myself and gained the experience. If one would be able to gain the experience of this hypothetical creator then one should be able to understand the mind that created them.
ecrouch
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
I didn't understand my parents at first, true, but eventually we came to an understanding; a level that we both could communicate equally. The processes that created me are understood to a degree but what created the process?
SteveS
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
SteveS, good question. If true, then how can I, as something merely created, hope to fully understand the mind of the entity that created me?


One would only need to understand the mind of the Creator if you are asking the question "Why was I created" The question I'm posing is "How was I created" The Creator must have used processes that exist and are therefore amenable to analysis.
mysticfree
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2009
"At the time these two early prokaryotes were evolving, there was no oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Humans could not live. No oxygen-breathing organisms could live. The oxygen on the Earth is the result of a subgroup of these double-membrane prokaryotes, Lake said. This subgroup, the cyanobacteria, used the sun's energy to produce oxygen through photosynthesis."

You have to wonder if there were any cyanobacteria environmentalist activists complaining about climate change and working to stop this oxygen production. ;)
CptWozza
4.5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2009
At the end of the day, Science still hangs its hat on the notion that life came from nothing. Nothing came together with nothing and formed something? I wonder what advancements might take place if we presuppose a Creator instead of an impossible chance?


Obviously there's an ignoramus born every minute, since they keep regurgitating badly discredited arguments. Words such as "came from", "created", "began" etc. only have meaning in the context of space-time. Causality only has meaning in the arena of space and time, by definition. These people are suggesting that something or someone caused causality, which is utterly meaningless.

Neither does science suggest that the universe developed according to blind chance alone (the phrase you used, "impossible chance" is meaningless since a probability is not by necessity zero). In evolution, for example, there is a chance element in terms of the variation of the gene pool, but natural selection itself is emphatically non-random, that's what the word selection means. There are suggestions that the physical universe itself operates according to a selection principle.

What worries me is not that so many people seem to lack thinking ability, but that so many people lack the most BASIC thinking ability.
SteveS
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
What worries me is not that so many people seem to lack thinking ability, but that so many people lack the most BASIC thinking ability.


Consider all the implications of solipsism. We believe our senses on faith.
CptWozza
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2009
Consider all the implications of solipsism. We believe our senses on faith.


Hasn't experience told us that the correct explanation is usually the one in which we are the not centre of the universe? In any case, it takes a rational thinker much, much longer to reach this slippery wall of subjectivity that you're talking about. The irrational people don't even get past the first block before they play the "our current scientific understanding is meaningless" card. So, nice try, but there are many other philosophical positions in which our senses have supposedly betrayed us, only one of which you have suggested, and none of which can be properly tested, which of course is the whole point.

If you are actually trying to covertly tar scientists with the same "faith" brush as religion has, not only are you talking about an entirely different kind of "faith" altogether, but you are also making a tacit admission that a faith-based system is flawed. However I am not sure if this was your point (If so it would just be a typical anti-intellectual attack). If you doubt that the "faith" in your slippery subjectivity argument is different from religion, try to imagine us all holding hands and singing songs to reinforce our faith that our eyes really did read the correct measurement on the mass spectrometer.
thales
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2009
If you doubt that the "faith" in your slippery subjectivity argument is different from religion, try to imagine us all holding hands and singing songs to reinforce our faith that our eyes really did read the correct measurement on the mass spectrometer.


Hilarious! I'm going to have to remember that one.
ecrouch
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but the character attack? Come on now. NERD FIGHT!!!! PARKING LOT, RADIO SHACK, 10 MINS!

Anyhow, if we were created by something bigger than us why should we presume to think we can dissect it and analyze it? And we have to give some credibility to the faiths as many of the early science founding fathers were believers. It is scary to think that something made us. That would mean we aren%u2019t as important as we often think we are. Signing off. -E
ecrouch
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009


Obviously there's an ignoramus born every minute, since they keep regurgitating badly discredited arguments. Words such as "came from", "created", "began" etc. only have meaning in the context of space-time. Causality only has meaning in the arena of space and time, by definition. These people are suggesting that something or someone caused causality, which is utterly meaningless.



Who says it's meaningless, you, me, a text book? Man, if something can make a universe and laws to govern it, what wouldn't be impossible for an entity like that?
CptWozza
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
It is scary to think that something made us. That would mean we aren't as important as we often think we are.








Like I said, you just keep repeating raggedy old arguments as though they've never been said before, a bit like a drunk that can't help vomiting again and again. On the contrary, it is the religious viewpoint which says, "I'm special. My species was created by the careful hand of some higher entity, and my planet was specifically chosen, wait no created no less, for this purpose".







It's time for the human race to grow out of this adolescence and realise that we are NOT special. Everything we've learned over the past century has taught us that the universe is a hostile cesspit of black holes, and that it harbours a few gravity wells (better known as planets) which are benign enough from our perspective to allow a species to evolve on it which will eventually suck up every available resource and cause its own extinction, but not before causing the extinction of many other organisms. THAT is the "scary" picture, the one in which we are not special, not being watched over, not hand crafted by some deity. The fact that you can see things in such a backwards way is a vivid demonstration of your lack of thinking ability.



CptWozza
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2009
Who says it's meaningless, you, me, a text book? Man, if something can make a universe and laws to govern it, what wouldn't be impossible for an entity like that?


You're still, absurdly, suggesting that something "caused" causality. You can't use the words "make a universe" because "make" is a time word. Time is a feature of space-time, of the universe itself. Get it? I fear not.
SteveS
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
I like to think I'm rational, that's why I believe my senses. Solipsism is an intellectual dead end, it can't be falsified and nothing can be proven.

I don't presuppose a Creator for the same reasons, if I were to I could no longer ask "How?"

if we were created by something bigger than us why should we presume to think we can dissect it and analyze it?


nor could I ask "Why?"

how can I, as something merely created, hope to fully understand the mind of the entity that created me?


Therefore the answer to the following question is self evident

I wonder what advancements might take place if we presuppose a Creator instead of an impossible chance?


None

That said, faith taken in moderation doesn't necessarily preclude a capacity for rational thought.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
Who says it's meaningless, you, me, a text book? Man, if something can make a universe and laws to govern it, what wouldn't be impossible for an entity like that?




You're still, absurdly, suggesting that something "caused" causality. You can't use the words "make a universe" because "make" is a time word. Time is a feature of space-time, of the universe itself. Get it? I fear not.

Exactly.

To imply a creator you must imply time is not a function of the Universe and pre-exists your "creator" meaning you still can't explain all with creationist philosphy.
thales
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
I agree with everything you said

Then we're off to a great start!

but

Oh dear.

the majority of Scientist do suppose a big-bag and/or evolution. The article above is good proof of that.

I notice you dropped the "pre" from your "suppose". Which is a good idea! The Big Bang and evolution are both theories that resulted from observation - in other words, they were conclusions, not presuppositions. The majority of scientists support the conclusions because of the very compelling evidence.

So, research sometimes, is slanted to prove a theory "right" instead of "wrong".

Why does that make me think of the Discovery Institute?

I'm mis-quoting someone here, but the gist of the quote says, "we should study to prove our theories wrong." If they pass our scrunity then we have a validated theory.

No argument here; that sounds reasonable.

Now the problem I see is that we rule out a creator right from the start. Look at the comment above yours. Valnarris won't ever take that into consideration; that's a presupposition.

I'd like to make a couple points here. The scientific method deals with nature and natural law, which does indeed exclude the supernatural right from the start. Having said that, a supernatural force that interacts with the universe will have *natural* effects. So while science can't test for supernaturalistic forces directly - which by the way is why deism probably can't ever be ruled out - it *can* test indirectly, by looking for natural effects.

So far the universe has been found to run entirely on natural laws, without any supernaturally caused effects. For example, if a soul interacted with the brain to produce thoughts (or vice versa), we would see unexplainable changes in the net energy of the brain. But we don't; the law of energy conservation is always upheld.

Who made the keyboard you're typing on? How do you know it was made by someone? The creation is evidence of a Creator.

Other machines are created by life but not by intelligence. Genetic algorithms design or help to design many kinds of machines, from antennae to jet engines (Marczyk 2004). One may attempt to argue that items designed by a genetic algorithm inherit the intelligent agency of the algorithm's designer, but this misses the point that no human mental activity directs the immediate operation of the algorithm. In some cases, for example in some electronic circuits, the algorithmically-designed results show no resemblance to their human-designed versions, and indeed, cannot be explained via human design methods (Koza et al. 2003).

I got the above paragraph from talkorigins.org. I think genetic algorithms are a powerful demonstration of the ability of mindless iterative algorithms to create strikingly clever solutions to complex problems. Don't be misled; complexity does not necessarily mean intelligent design. An iterative algorithm can produce amazing, and even amazingly functional, systems. Evolution just happens to be a particularly noticeable example.
Vito
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
Let's go back to my main comment. THIS ARTICLE is badly written because it is very misleading. Let's set aside the original article and the fact that it is just a hypothesis. THIS ARTICLE is a classic example of shoving evolution down our throat. It should have been more objectively written. It is written as if the ultimate missing link has already been found when in fact the original article just did some in silico analyses of already existing data.

I am more commenting against this article than the original hypothesis published in Nature because scientists can access the Nature article and put it under scrutiny but this article is very accessible to the public and it has the power to sway the opinion of the general public. PhysOrg editors should be more proactive and diligent in doing their jobs. If I can have it my way, I will delete this article and rewrite it to be more objective.
thales
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2009
Fine, yeah, the article's badly written. Lots of them are. It's not a very interesting point is all.
Vito
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2009
It's an irresponsible piece of science article and it would be apathetic and totally indifferent on my part to not point that out. And I wont be silent simply because most science articles are badly written anyway. We should aim for more objectivity and excellence.

I respect the hypothesis published in Nature because it has undergone scrutiny from peer reviewers. But I am just concerned that this PhysOrg article also comes from the University of California, Dr. Lake's university. I am just worried that he says one thing in Nature and the University says another thing here. This PhysOrg article is just simply a quantum leap from the original claims of the hypothesis published by Dr. Lake in Nature.
cakmn
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2009
I agree with Vito that it is an irresponsibly written article, particularly here on PhysOrg where more responsible reporting should reasonably be expected.

It's one thing for general readership publications to regularly mis-report, confabulate and fantasize about some experiment and discovery. It's quite another when a science oriented publication does likewise.

And it's no excuse to condone such poor reporting simply because it's almost impossible to find well written articles published for a more general readership. It's no wonder that the public's understanding of basic science is so poor, which makes it all the more imperative that the quality of science reporting should be greatly improved.
Vito
not rated yet Aug 20, 2009
The title itself is very misleading: "Major insights into evolution of life reported".

Major insights REPORTED? I would opt for "postulated" or "hypothesized" or "inferred" or anything less definitive.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 21, 2009
Look at the comment above yours. Valnarris won't ever take that into consideration; that's a presupposition.


Try again. I'm an agnostic deist, not an atheist. That being said I'm waiting for evidence of a creator because faith in the unseen is foolish.
gopher65
not rated yet Aug 23, 2009
Try again. I'm an agnostic deist, not an atheist. That being said I'm waiting for evidence of a creator because faith in the unseen is foolish.

Indeed. I'm an atheist, but I can respect the position of agnostic leaning deists.

On the other hand I have no respect for people silly enough to automatically assume that there must be a giant Santa Clause in the sky who is going to give them presents when they die (resurrection, eternal life, and, as a stocking stuffer, bliss). I mean... where does an idea like that even come from? It's ridiculous on the face of it.
HenisDov
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2009
The Basic Implications Of E=Total[m(1 D)]

a recapitulation


A. Its essential statement

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold."

E = Energy content of the universe
m = mass content of the universe
D = distance, Total = in all spatial directions, from the point of Big-Bang, of singularity's energy-mass superposition

At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm, E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
The increase of D is the initial inflation, followed by the ongoing expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.

At 10^-35 seconds, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity starts. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the energetic space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.


B. Some of its further essential implications beyond Einstein-Hubble and re classical-quantum physics

And again and again : "On The Origin Of Origins"
http://www.the-sc...age#2753

1. It promotes commonsensical scientific critical thinking beyond Einstein-Hubble.

The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - BY DISPERSION - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.

2. There is no call, no need, for any dark energy. The energy of the universe is conserved. The mass of the universe is conserved in the form of energy, the energy fueling the clusters expansion. At the next universal singularity, at the next D = 0, there will again be E = m for a small fraction of a second...just wait and see...

Following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters and the laws that drive it, based on the E/ m/ D relationship suggested above..

3. There is no call, no need, for a Higgs Particle.

The resolution of energy-mass superposition is reverted when D = 0. Shockingly sad, but must be soberingly faced rationally.


C. Its implications re the origin and nature of life beyond Darwin, re selection for survival

For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of energy within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.

Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.

For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.

The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on direct solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.


Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
http://www.the-sc...age#2321
HenisDov
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2009
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009

Recapitulation of some earlier notes on the
Scientific Comprehension Of The Origin, Drive, Nature And Purpose Of Life


A. Uniqueness Of science among human artifacts

ALL aspects of our culture are, of course, anthropoartifacts, including science. Yet among those artifacts science has a distinct uniqueness for us.

During the recent several centuries in the course of human history humans have been developing science at an accelerating rate as a provider of convincing, ever closer approaching, approximate models of the real world.


B. Origin and nature of life

Astronomically there are two "physics", a "classical physics" system of and between galactic clusters, and a "quantum physics" system WITHIN the galactic clusters.

The onset of big-bang's inflation started gravity, followed by formation of galactic clusters that behave as Newtonian bodies while continuously reconverting their shares of pre-inflation masses back to energy, that continuously fuels their ongoing expansion, and of endless intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempts to resist this reconversion.

As mass is just another face of energy it is commonsensible to regard not only life, but mass in general, as a format of temporarily constrained energy.

It therefore ensues that whereas the in-space expanding cosmic constructs, the galaxies clusters, are - overall - continuously converting their original pre-inflation mass back to energy, the overall evolution WITHIN them, within the clusters, is in the opposite direction, temporarily constrained energy packages such as black holes and biospheres and other energy-storing mass-formats are precariuosly forming and "doing best" to survive as long as "possible"...


C. The drive and nature of Earth life

Earth life Genesis, formation of the first genes, was a phenomenon of serendipitous occurrence, in a supportive environment, of 'favourably-coursed' energy potential between in-coming sun's radiation and polymerizing-precipitating RNA-related oligomeric configuration.

The drive of Earth life and of its evolution is to enhance the functionality and survivability of Earth's genes, in order to maintain and enhance Earth-biosphere's temporary constrained energy storage and to maintain the biosphere BIO as long as possible.

It is the genes, life's prime strata organisms, that evolve, and the evolution of genomes, the 2nd stratum of life, and of the 3rd life stratum cellular organisms, is an interenhancing consequence of their genes' evolution.


D. The formation of Earth life

Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes, genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere.

Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by proliferating and maintenance of genes.

Gene: the primal Earth's organism. (1st stratum organism)

Genome: a multigenes organism consisting of a cooperative commune of its member genes. (2nd stratum organism)

Cellular organisms: mono- or multi-celled Earth organisms. (3rd stratum organism)


E. Update of underlying life sciences conception is thus feasible

- First were independent individual genes, Earth's primal organisms.

- Genes aggregated cooperatively into genomes, multigenes organisms, with genomes' organs.

- Simultaneously or consequently genomes evolved protective-functional membranes, organs.

- Then followed cellular organisms, with a variety of outer-cell membrane shapes and
functionalities.

This conception is a scientific, NOT TECHNICAL, life-science innovation.

It is tomorrow's comprehension of life and of its evolution.

IT IS FRAUGHT WITH INTRIGUING DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IMPLICATIONS.

IT IS FRAUGHT WITH INTRIGUING TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIALS.


F. The purpose of OUR, human, life

The purpose of OUR life and of its promotion is ours to formulate and set. It derives solely from our cognition.


Suggesting,

Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
http://blog.360.y...Q--?cq=1
On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters, AND Life
A Commonsensible Recapitulation
http://www.the-sc...age#2125
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-sc...age#1407
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 24, 2009
For the creationists:
It is scary to think that something made us. That would mean we aren't as important as we often think we are.

One of the tenets of your belief is that we were purposfully engineered by another being...

If that's the case, how would you know you're not some sort of unwanted cosmological contaminant introduced by a lazy or careless God intern?
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 25, 2009
That post was a typical copycat Creationist technique.

Look at what the Evil Evolutionists say about us God Fearing Creationists.

Change the wording to replace Creationist with Evolutionist and vice versa. Then don't bother to notice that it no longer fits reality and pretend real hard that it makes sense still.

Basically their beliefs tell them that they are Special and Important because it says so in their religion. Since this makes them feel better about themselves they assume it applies to their opposition as well.

So no they aren't going to ever feel that they are a cosmological contaminant since the Bible says the world and the animals were made for them to exploit.

And they aren't ever going to think the maybe Jehovah DID write the Bible but it was a gullibility test.

Please note that I did not in any way call anyone stupid. Even P. T. Barnum was conned at least once.

Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.
alq131
not rated yet Aug 26, 2009
it could be considered an "impossible chance" that my parents ever met each other and made me, and that I would meet my wife and have kids. I can think of hundreds of specific things that could have changed to make me not be here...but is that a creator's hand or just random walk? To me, random-walk seems more realistic, proven and comfortable an explanation.

Invoking a creator isn't necessary.