Like a hungry teen, life on Earth had big growth spurts

Oct 27, 2009 By Robert S. Boyd

Twice in the Earth's history, living creatures underwent astonishing growth spurts, and each time, new organisms emerged that were a million times larger than anything that had existed before.

Scientists say that's the way life on our planet expanded from tiny single-celled microbes billions of years ago to the ponderous whales and lofty sequoia trees that are today's biggest living things.

Rather than a gradual increase in maximum body size, as scientists used to think, they now think that growth was a two-step process. The first spurt happened about 1.85 billion years ago, and the second about 580 million years ago, long before dinosaurs walked the .

Scientists say the main driver of each growth step was a massive increase in the supply of oxygen, which is needed to convert food to the additional energy required for larger, more complex life forms.

"The two most rapid increases in maximum size correspond closely with the two primary episodes of increase in the concentration of ," Jonathan Payne, a paleobiologist at Stanford University, reported in the .

"Size rules life," John Bonner, a retired professor of evolutionary biology at Princeton University, wrote in his book, "Why Size Matters." "It is the supreme and universal determinant of what any organism can be and can do."

Larger creatures are better able to capture prey, fight or escape predators and survive hard times. On the other hand, they need more food and water, depend on their mothers longer and are slower to adapt to environmental changes than their smaller cousins are.

Based on , biologists think that life on Earth began in the ocean at least 3.5 billion years ago, a billion years after the birth of our planet. The earliest microbes didn't need oxygen, but fed by scavenging molecules of carbon, iron, sulfur and other minerals they found in the sea.

After a billion or more years, pioneer organisms known as cyanobacteria -- resembling today's pond scum -- learned how to capture energy from the sun through photosynthesis. A byproduct was oxygen.

"All of the oxygen in the atmosphere ultimately exists because of the evolution of cyanobacteria," Payne said. "There is no other process on the planet that can generate oxygen in sufficient quantities."

By analyzing traces of minerals in ancient rocks, scientists figured out a rough chronology for the surges in oxygen levels. They began to rise slowly about 2.35 billion years ago and reached a peak 1.85 billion years ago, according to Donald Canfield, a biologist at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

By that time, enough oxygen had accumulated to fuel Earth's first great growth spurt and change the way living creatures worked.

Some cells developed nuclei, separate pockets to hold their DNA and perform other useful functions. These advanced cells, called eukaryotes (pronounced "you-CAR-ree-oats"), allowed some organisms to grow as much as a million times larger than their ancestors that lacked nuclei.

"You need a eukaryotic cell to make that first size jump," Payne said.

Things continued pretty much the same for more than another billion years. Until about 600 million years ago, the world's population consisted of single-celled organisms swimming in water.

Then oxygen supplies began their second great leap, reaching a new peak some 20 million years later.

The causes of the second oxygenation event are poorly understood.

One theory, by David Johnston, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, is that a change in ocean chemistry allowed cyanobactria to proliferate and churn out more oxygen.

The chemical change may have been the result of a massive melt-off of glaciers at the end of one of the Earth's periodic ice ages 580 million years ago. The melting glaciers dumped nutrients into the ocean, making photosynthetic organisms more productive.

"Immediately after this ice age there is evidence for a huge increase in atmospheric oxygen to at least 15 percent of modern levels, and these sediments also contain evidence of the oldest large animal fossils," Guy Narbonne, a paleontologist at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, reported in Science magazine.

Fueled by more oxygen, eukaryotes took another enormously significant stride: They started to combine into larger organisms containing multiple cells, organs and tissues.

Narbonne, Canfield and colleagues found some ancient fossils of these multicelled creatures three years ago on the colorfully named Mistaken Point, on the rocky coast of Newfoundland. Narbonne called them "the earliest large and architecturally complex eukaryote fossils known anywhere in the world."

At first, these ancient animals were soft-bodied, like modern jellyfish. Around 542 million years ago, however, some animals developed shells and skeletons and grew larger.

This was the famous "Cambrian Explosion" of complex forms, which led to today's species, the biggest of them another million times larger than their single-celled ancestors.

Fish, reptiles, birds, amphibians, plants, mammals and human beings were finally on their way, and the Earth's largest living thing, the sequoia tree, is 10 million billion times bigger than the first tiny microbe in the sea.
___

(c) 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com

Explore further: Hurricane Edouard right environment for drone test (Update)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Finding an answer to Darwin's Dilemma

Dec 08, 2006

The sudden appearance of large animal fossils more than 500 million years ago – a problem that perplexed even Charles Darwin and is commonly known as "Darwin’s Dilemma" – may be due to a huge increase of oxygen in the ...

Life got bigger in two, million-fold leaps, scientists say

Dec 22, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Extremes are exciting. Does anyone really think dinosaurs would capture our imagination the way they do if they hadn't been so huge? You don't see natural history museums vying for fossil skeletons ...

Learning to live with oxygen on early Earth

Oct 16, 2006

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution and Penn State University have discovered evidence showing that microbes adapted to living with oxygen 2.72 billion years ago, at least 300 million years before the rise of oxygen in ...

Recommended for you

Tree rings and arroyos

11 hours ago

A new GSA Bulletin study uses tree rings to document arroyo evolution along the lower Rio Puerco and Chaco Wash in northern New Mexico, USA. By determining burial dates in tree rings from salt cedar and wi ...

NASA image: Agricultural fires in the Ukraine

12 hours ago

Numerous fires (marked with red dots) are burning in Eastern Europe, likely as a result of regional agricultural practices. The body of water at the lower left of this true-color Moderate Resolution Imaging ...

NASA marks Polo for a hurricane

13 hours ago

Hurricane Polo still appears rounded in imagery from NOAA's GOES-West satellite, but forecasters at the National Hurricane Center expect that to change.

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

magpies
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2009
After a billion or more years, pioneer organisms known as cyanobacteria -- resembling today's pond scum -- learned how to capture energy from the sun through photosynthesis.

So these things really did have intelligence even back then?
SincerelyTwo
Oct 27, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hemo_jr
not rated yet Oct 27, 2009
So, if cynobacteria and/or lichen invaded the land and atmosphere about 600 mya, could that be the cause of the second jump?
TegiriNenashi
Oct 28, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2009
SincerelyTwo, I think magpies has a point. It was a stupid remark in the article. Cyanobacteria EVOLVED they didn't learn. Sloppy writing like that encourages the Creationists.

Ethelred
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2009
Hitherto I thought the verb "learn" is applicable to living and non-living objects equally well. Like a "self-learning remote control". But I'm not a native speaker.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2009
English is often sloppy, words have multiple meanings, depending on context. Learning is mostly used with humans in mind and secondarily with animals that have at least one neuron.

When dealing with something in biology that has even the slightest possible reference to evolution it is best to be VERY clear and precise. Preferably without being grossly pedantic. Otherwise someone like Mabarker will take your statements out of context and pretend that they support him.

Learning implies an intent to learn, or at least a memory with which to learn, so its a poor choice when dealing with processes that have no goal.

English needs better words than learning for systems with memory but without self direction. Programming fits for the remote and is the term I usually see. However programming is best for devices that are KNOWN to have created with intent unlike life where it is open to question, at most, whether intent was involved.

Ethelred
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2009
Thanks for your helpful and interesting explanation.
thepowerofthefinger
not rated yet Nov 06, 2009
Ethelred
lovin ur work man. theres alot less creationist bulls**t in the comments nowadays and some ur arguments with them have been priceless. dont scare off all the religious nuts tho, sometimes i need a giggle to go with my science.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2009
Moderators have been deleting many posts. Sometimes with good reason sometimes for no apparent reason.

I the deletions are the main reason for the decrease in Drive By Posts.

Ethelred