Earliest evidence of reproduction in a complex organism

Earliest evidence of reproduction in a complex organism
Artist's reconstruction of the Fractofusus community on the H14 surface at Bonavista Peninsula showing the clusters that arise from stolon-like reproduction. The large individuals represent the primary colonizers of the site. Their offspring cluster around them, and are themselves surrounded by their own offspring - the third generation on the bed. The stolon-like protrusions are faintly visible and weave in and out of the microbial mat which covers the seafloor. Lighting is artificial and as though from a submersible ROV. Credit: C. G. Kenchington

Researchers led by the University of Cambridge have found the earliest example of reproduction in a complex organism. Their new study has found that some organisms known as rangeomorphs, which lived 565 million years ago, reproduced by taking a joint approach: they first sent out an 'advance party' to settle in a new area, followed by rapid colonisation of the new neighbourhood. The results, reported today in the journal Nature, could aid in revealing the origins of our modern marine environment.

Using statistical techniques to assess the distribution of populations of a type of rangeomorph called Fractofusus, the researchers observed that larger 'grandparent' rangeomorphs were randomly distributed in their environment, and were surrounded by distinct patterns of smaller 'parents' and 'children'. These patterns strongly resemble the biological clustering observed in modern plants, and suggest a dual mode of reproduction: the 'grandparents' being the product of ejected waterborne propagules, while the 'parents' and 'children' grew from 'runners' sent out by the older generation, like strawberry plants.

Rangeomorphs were some of the earliest complex organisms on Earth, and have been considered to be some of the first animals - although it's difficult for scientists to be entirely sure. They thrived in the oceans during the late Ediacaran period, between 580 and 541 million years ago, and could reach up to two metres in length, although most were around ten centimetres. Looking like trees or ferns, they did not appear to have mouths, organs, or means of moving, and probably absorbed nutrients from the water around them.

Like many of the life forms during the Ediacaran, rangeomorphs mysteriously disappeared at the start of the Cambrian period, which began about 540 million years ago, so it has been difficult to link rangeomorphs to any modern organisms, or to figure out how they lived, what they ate and how they reproduced.

"Rangeomorphs don't look like anything else in the fossil record, which is why they're such a mystery," said Dr Emily Mitchell, a postdoctoral researcher in Cambridge's Department of Earth Sciences, and the paper's lead author. "But we've developed a whole new way of looking at them, which has helped us understand them a lot better - most interestingly, how they reproduced."

Mitchell and her colleagues used high-resolution GPS, spatial statistics and modelling to examine fossils of Fractofusus, in order to determine how they reproduced. The fossils are from south-eastern Newfoundland in Canada, which is one of the world's richest sources of fossils from the Ediacaran period. Since rangeomorphs were immobile, it is possible to find entire ecosystems preserved exactly where they lived, making them extremely suitable for study via spatial techniques.

The 'generational' clustering patterns the researchers observed fit closely to a model known as a nested double Thomas cluster model, of the type seen in modern plants. These patterns suggest rapid, asexual reproduction through the use of stolons or runners. At the same time, the random distribution of larger 'grandparent' Fractofusus specimens suggests that they were the result of waterborne propagules, which could have been either sexual or asexual in nature.

"Reproduction in this way made rangeomorphs highly successful, since they could both colonise new areas and rapidly spread once they got there," said Mitchell. "The capacity of these organisms to switch between two distinct modes of reproduction shows just how sophisticated their underlying biology was, which is remarkable at a point in time when most other forms of life were incredibly simple."

The use of this type of spatial analysis to reconstruct Ediacaran organism biology is only in its infancy, and the researchers intend to extend their approach to further understand how these strange organisms interacted with each other and their environment.


Explore further

Reconstructions show how some of the earliest animals lived—and died (w/ Video)

More information: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature14646
Journal information: Nature

Citation: Earliest evidence of reproduction in a complex organism (2015, August 3) retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-earliest-evidence-reproduction-complex.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
55 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

JVK
Aug 03, 2015
Reproduction is nutrient-dependent and controlled by RNA-mediated gene duplication that links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all genera via the physiology of their biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding during thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation.

For example, "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum occurred over the weekend. http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

Why do these researchers think these organisms lived between 580 and 541 million years ago? The fossil record already was used in a report of organisms that did not change in ~2 billion years.

http://phys.org/n...ars.html

Whose inventing the dates for comparison to what occurred via successful nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction over-the-weekend?

JVK
Aug 04, 2015
Journal article excerpt: "Reproductive biology lies at the core of ecological and evolutionary dynamics..."

Ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptation via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication, and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all genera via the physiology of reproduction.

How is the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction linked to any "evolutionary dynamics" outside the context of what is known about the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient dependent RNA-mediated protein folding?

Serious scientists have begun to ask questions about what neo-Darwinists are calling evolutionary dynamics. Who's willing to answer those questions?

Aug 04, 2015
Fossil dating is a mature science even if young earth creation idiots refuse to understand it.

Aug 04, 2015
Re "young earth creation idiots", yes indeed. The pheromone troll, which has tread farther from known science and sanity with every thread, has placed himself now. We'll see how stable that particular exudation will be, if one can sink even lower I'm sure this troll will eventually do it.

JVK
Aug 04, 2015
Fossil dating never included anything currently known about how quickly viruses can cause the "re-evolution" of a functional structure (in 4 days, via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaption in bacteria)...

See: Evolutionary Rewiring http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

Or Not (in 2 billion years), see: Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years http://phys.org/n...ars.html

Svante Paabo co-authored a published work the links the disparate time frames to morphological and behavioral phenotype of primates.
Natural Selection on the Olfactory Receptor Gene Family in Humans and Chimpanzees
http://linkinghub...07620138

The obvious link is to the single nutrient-dependent fixation of the amino acid substitution reported in Dobzhansky (1973) http://www.jstor..../4444260

Aug 04, 2015
@JVK

Fossil dating never included anything currently known about how quickly viruses can cause the "re-evolution" of a functional structure (in 4 days, via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaption in bacteria)...

See: Evolutionary Rewiring http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

Viruses are never mentioned in your link

Your comments have become increasingly bizarre, I seriously suggest you see your doctor.

JVK
Aug 04, 2015
Your comments have become increasingly bizarre,


You understand nothing about cell type differentiation, which means everything about it that is accurately represented will seem to become increasingly bizarre.

Search Results for 'viruses' http://rna-mediat...=viruses

Koonin: viruses killed neo-Darwinism
http://rna-mediat...rwinism/

Viruses, amino acids, and somatic cell types (3)
http://rna-mediat...types-3/

Viruses, amino acids, and somatic cell types (2)
http://rna-mediat...types-2/

Viruses, amino acids, and somatic cell types
http://rna-mediat...l-types/


JVK
Aug 05, 2015
See also:
The stability of organized genomes (3) http://rna-mediat...nomes-3/

The stability of organized genomes (2) http://rna-mediat...nomes-2/

The stability of organized genomes http://rna-mediat...genomes/

The stability of all organized genomes is nutrient-dependent and it is controlled by the physiology of reproduction, which is a manifestation of the organism's ability to repair DNA damage caused by viruses.

If you want to argue against Koonin and the irreparable damage he did to neo-Darwinian theory, present some experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that links viruses to beneficial mutations and increasing organismal complexity that is manifested in the morphological and the behavioral phenotypes of all living genera.

Aug 05, 2015
Statement directly from Eugene Koonin to me:

"I certainly have never even thought about "rejecting" neo-Darwinism. All I said, in this interview and many previous publications, is that neo-Darwinsim Is a rather narrowly constrained theoretical framework that, for various reasons, leaves out many key evolutionary processes. One of the primary reasons for that is simply that at the time neo-Darwinism took its shape (1950s), the salient theory and especially observations were unavailable."

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
If Koonin wants to argue against the irreparable damage he did to neo-Darwinian theory, he should do it himself, not through an anonymous fool like Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) whose "Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model" included no alternative model for comparison to MY model. http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

He wrote: "Allele changes are not epigenetic and I know of no mechanism that makes deterministic gene sequence changes prompted by epigenetic alterations."

In my review, I wrote: The honeybee already serves as a model organism for studying human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, the development of the brain and behavior, mental health, longevity, diseases of the X chromosome, learning and memory, as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli (Kohl, 2012). --see Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on ...

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
The honeybee model organism of human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, the development of the brain and behavior, mental health, longevity, diseases of the X chromosome, learning and memory, as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli, links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated gene duplication and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to the hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior of humans via the details on molecular epigenetics we included in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

To my knowledge, there is no other model that links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in all living genera via what is currently known to serious scientists about the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding.

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
Re: "...at the time neo-Darwinism took its shape (1950s), the salient theory and especially observations were unavailable."

Nonsense. See: http://www.huffin...211.html Excerpt: "[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."

If Koonin wants to re-write history, he should first address the historical facts known to those outside the confines of the evolution industry. Obviously, only neo-Darwinian theorists are going to believe anything they are told. Serious scientists will continue to learn more about HOW cell type differentiation occurs.

Aug 05, 2015
It's hilarious watching you turn on Koonin now that you know he doesn't agree with you. Who's going to be your next messiah so I can get to work contacting them about how you misrepresent their views and put words in their mouth?

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
For example: http://www.jneuro...act?etoc "Thalamic WNT3 Secretion Spatiotemporally Regulates the Neocortical Ribosome Signature and mRNA Translation to Specify Neocortical Cell Subtypes"

From our 1996 review: "While ramifications of these centimorgan sexual dimorphisms are not yet clearly established, in recent years cis- and trans-acting factors contributing to these recombination length differences have been reported for a specific part of the murine major histocompatibility complex (MHC)..." The ramications of those cell type and species-specific tissue type differences were recently extended to sex differences in the immune system of adult human males and females.

Women's immune genes are regulated differently to men's, study finds http://www.scienc...n=buffer

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
"...turn on Koonin now that you know he doesn't agree with you."

In the interview, he made it clear that he didn't agree with any of the serious scientists who are championing "personalized medicine." http://www.huffin...216.html

Excerpt: "[T]he entire ideology of personalized medicine should be taken with many grains of salt."

The serious scientists are among others who are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease." http://www.scienc...88.short

Clearly, Koonin does not want to join them. I'm not sure how he thinks he can get his work funded when President Obama and Francis Collins (NIH director) are clearly on the side of the serious scientists.

See: http://www.reuter...20150130

Perhaps Koonin will simply retire, by choice (or not, thanks to Andrew Jones).

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
"...the ribosome is a phylogenetically divergent structure, possibly corresponding to the specific demands of different organisms or tissues (Roberts et al., 2008). As studies in the developing axial skeleton suggest (Kondrashov et al., 2011; Xue et al., 2015), the patterning of complex tissues via specific ribosomal machinery may represent a conserved developmental mechanism. Dissecting how the combinatorial composition of the ribosome may contribute to a cell-type-specific translation of its transcriptome will be an interesting direction for future study." http://www.jneuro...abstract

Nutrient-dependent species-specific cell type differentiation in all cells of all tissues of all organs and all organ-systems has been addressed in my model of RNA-mediated events that link the fixation of amino acid substitutions to the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding in all genera via conserved molecular mechanisms.


JVK
Aug 05, 2015
No matter what Eugene Koonin says or does now, I thank him for helping to make it clear why

"...evolutionary science has now "moved on to such an extent" that ...[Mae Won Ho] and Peter Saunders don't really care anymore about "trying to convince the neo-Darwinists."
http://www.huffin...450.html

Also, I think theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins may thank Koonin for his support of their scientific advances compared to the stagnation caused by ignorant theorists. Most of all, however, I think the young earth creationists may soon begin thanking Koonin for advancing the perspective on viruses they supported in an article published a few weeks before the interview with Mazur was published.

See: Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk http://www.icr.or...cle/8661
Excerpt: "The most parsimonious answer is: the RNA viruses got their genes from their hosts."

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
Who's going to be your next messiah so I can get to work contacting them about how you misrepresent their views and put words in their mouth?


Thanks for asking. I think it will be Nagel's Darwin. See: "Intermolecular thermodynamics and thermoregulation of adaptive evolution"
http://perfumingt...olution/

Unless, of course, I am Nagel's Darwin. If so, there is no need for another messiah. Everyone already knows that Darwin's 'conditions of life' were well represented in Biblical Genesis. Organisms must eat and reproduce or species become extinct; they don't mutate and become a different species.

Aug 05, 2015
Clearly, Koonin does not want to join them.


It's unclear how you reached that conclusion since the "combating evolution" article is unrelated to personalized medicine. Another example of you jumping from topic to unrelated topic without any sensible connection.

And you still don't understand what they mean by "combating evolution".

Mae Won Ho seems to be trying to stir up controversy that doesn't exist in the first place. Epigenetics is not at odds with Modern Synthesis. It's just an additional layer of variation and an additional layer that selection can act on.

Organisms must eat and reproduce or species become extinct; they don't mutate and become a different species.


False dichotomy.

JVK
Aug 05, 2015
anonymous_9001 tells us nothing about how cell type differentiation occurs in his world or which universe it is in. They made it clear what they mean by "combating evolution."

The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," but perhaps, too, "nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology." Although the latter might be an exaggeration, an important gap is being filled by molecular understanding of the genesis of variation that confers the ability to evolve.


Dobzhansky (1973) claimed that a single nutrient-dependent amino acid substitution differentiated the cell types of gorillas, chimps, and humans. http://www.jstor..../4444260

"...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla." ( p. 127)

What dichotomy?

Aug 05, 2015
What dichotomy?


Mutation and selection is not an *alternative* to eating and reproducing or whatever odd comparison you're making between those two things.

Aug 06, 2015
Fish evolution is tied to key moments in human history
http://www.scient...-trout1/

"To test for pollution-induced evolution and assess the timing of the changes, scientists from the University of Exeter compared DNA samples from 15 populations of wild trout (700 fish in total), nine inhabiting polluted catchments and six from clean sites. Not only did the genetic composition of the populations differ significantly, the divergences mapped remarkably well to key moments in recent human history."

@JVK

Evolution by genetic mutation.

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
http://rspb.royal...20151019 was reported as
Expanding theory of evolution http://phys.org/n...ion.html

You need only insert the anti-entropic energy of the sun and the controlled physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction to link the de novo creation of nucleic acids and RNA-mediated gene duplication to the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all genera.

The result is nutrient-dependent ecological speciation and all biodiversity, which is perturbed by viruses that alter the energy needs of cells. Virus-perturbed protein folding is linked via "mutations" to all pathology by the accumulation of viral microRNAs. Viral microRNAs alter thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation and link entropic elasticity to genomic entropy -- not to genetic evolution.

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
Fish evolution is tied to key moments in human history


Fish odor syndrome (in humans) links the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation and virus-perturbed protein folding from microbes to man during the development of their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Excerpt: "High excretion rates of trimethylamine-associated odor in humans cause 'fish odor syndrome'. The aversive body odor has been attributed to a mutation (Dolphin, Janmohamed, Smith, Shephard, & Phillips, 1997). This attribution is not consistent with the portrayal of synergy in the mouse model, which enables both the production of the odor and the response to the odor.

This synergy requires at least two things to happen simultaneously: for example, (1) natural selection for nutrient chemicals and (2) sexual selection for odor production..."

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
Mutation and selection is not an *alternative* to eating and reproducing or whatever odd comparison you're making between those two things.


Mutation and selection have nothing to do with what is known to serious scientists about how increasing organismal complexity arises in the context of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.

Eating and reproducing is required. If you want to include mutation and selection in the same context as what is required for ecological variation to lead to ecological adaptation, you need to provide experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that incorporates ridiculous theories about mutations and selection into the requirements that meet Darwin's 'conditions of life.'

Perhaps Eugene Koonin can help you to do that in the context of his claims about the role of amino acids, but I doubt it. He seems to be focused on ridiculous theories.


Aug 06, 2015
Mutation and selection have nothing to do with what is known to serious scientists


Which is getting to be a pretty small list now that you know Koonin doesn't subscribe to your nonsense, huh?

Directed mutation leading to antibody resistance in WNV:

http://www.ncbi.n...3302547/

A recent review on mutagenesis and directed evolution:

http://www.nature...927.html

See: "Intermolecular thermodynamics and thermoregulation of adaptive evolution"
http://perfumingt...olution/


"For example, the epigenetic effect of one nutrient causes the formation of a receptor that lets it enter the cell."

You didn't think this through at all... How does a nutrient cause changes in a cell before it even has the capability to enter it? If there isn't a receptor for it in the first place, it can't enter to give itself a receptor

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
You didn't think this through at all...
How does a nutrient cause changes in a cell before it even has the capability to enter it?


How could you know whether or not I thought it through?

The odor-induced epigenetic effect on receptor-mediated events also links viruses to their entry into cells, but the physics and chemistry may be unknown to some biologists.

That does not mean they are uninformed science idiots like you. It just means that they have not had the time or willingness to examine research that links the disciplines from outside their area of expertise to their somewhat limited perspectives.

Thanks for citing my blog post at perfumingthemind.com but there are many more pertinent posts at http://RNA-mediated.com

Please ask Koonin if he knows how RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all living genera.

Until then, don't make claims about him.

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
Also, please stop the nonsense that includes linking to articles about mutagenesis.

A recent review on mutagenesis and directed evolution:


I've told you plenty of times that the meaningful interpretations of such works was placed into the context of ridiculous theories. Now that Koonin has admitted that the theories did not consider the role of viruses, your interpretations of your own foolish works are just as meaningless as the interpretations of Lenski's works.

Obviously, the physiology of reproduction in E. coli must be nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled by RNA-mediated events and nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions, unless there is another model for cell type differentiation.

You still have not offered a model for comparison to mine.
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Aug 06, 2015
Why would you argue with a fucking Georgia redneck like JVK that just parrots whatever he was taught by mossbacking retards?

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
That's a great question.

Everyone should simply accept the fact that the people "NiteSkyGerl" refers to as "mossbacking retards" have always been among the top scientists in the world.

They are best known for not accepting ridiculous theories. Instead, they demand experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that links thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation to successful reproduction via the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the context of reproduction that links the substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all living genera.

See what happens, when the conserved molecular mechanisms are perturbed by viruses that steal the nutrient-dependent energy required for DNA repair. http://www.molbio...abstract

Note: A new species does not evolve!

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
Re: How could you know whether or not I thought it through?

See my invited review of nutritional epigenetics.
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems

http://figshare.c...s/994281

If you think I missed something that occurs in the atoms to ecosystems context of HOW ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptations via epigenetically-effected RNA-mediated cause and effect that is perturbed by viruses, I would be happy to reconsider whatever details of the model are incomplete.

Keep in mind that any claims made about the fact that you don't like the model have probably already been invalidated by the fact that neo-Darwinian theorists never included the role of viruses in their ridiculous misrepresentation of how they thought evolution might have occurred.

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
See also: "Mutant cells that can't copy DNA somehow keep dividing when they shouldn't—with disastrous consequences" http://phys.org/n...ous.html

I'm not sure who thinks these researchers are "mossbacking retards." I think they could teach most people a thing or two about virus-perturbed thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation if they understand or learn to understand the need for an anti-entropic force to prevent the effects of entropic elasticity from leading to genomic entropy.

Does anyone refer to Stuart Kauffman as a "mossbacking retard?"
"He proposed that our scientific understanding of reality is radically incomplete, and that some sort of anti-entropy, order-generating force remains to be discovered."
http://blogs.scie...steries/

JVK
Aug 06, 2015
http://www.scienc....summary
The next century of ecology

Excerpt: "From the microbes inhabiting the earth beneath our feet to environments of the universe unknown to us now, the next 100 years of ecological discoveries will influence our lives. We enter a time when society is armed with the scientific knowledge and ability to make responsible decisions."

Evolutionary theorists have refused to arm themselves. The next year of ecological discoveries will eliminate the "Modern Synthesis" from any further consideration whatsoever.

See also: http://rspb.royal...20151019 "The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions."

It is merely a feeble attempt to move forward while saddled with ridiculous theories that cannot be made to fit what is known to serious scientists about the biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more