Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Paper: “The origin and relationship between the three domains of life is lodged in a phylogenetic impasse”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

And you can download it for free from the Royal Society until September 24, here.

Transitional forms between the three domains of life and evolutionary implications

Emmanuel G. Reynaud1,* and Damien P. Devos2,*

The question as to the origin and relationship between the three domains of life is lodged in a phylogenetic impasse. The dominant paradigm is to see the three domains as separated. However, the recently characterized bacterial species have suggested continuity between the three domains.

Here, we review the evidence in support of this hypothesis and evaluate the implications for and against the models of the origin of the three domains of life. The existence of intermediate steps between the three domains discards the need for fusion to explain eukaryogenesis and suggests that the last universal common ancestor was complex.

We propose a scenario in which the ancestor of the current bacterial Planctomycetes, Verrucomicrobiae and Chlamydiae superphylum was related to the last archaeal and eukaryotic common ancestor, thus providing a way out of the phylogenetic impasse.

If the last universal common ancestor was complex, as the researchers reasonably suggest … and how long ago was that? Then how did … ?

They got the impasse part right.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Please reference these alleged "promising testable hypotheses abiogenesis". And what is the evidence that demonstrates that the ancestors of the LUCA were simpler than the LUCA. You do realize that with evolution organisms can become more simple and there isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can make the functionally simple functionally more complex.Joseph
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Yes there is. How do you think abiogenesis labs work if they don't have data?Elizabeth Liddle
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
There isn't any data in support of abiogenesis.Joseph
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
No, it isn't a "bald-faced lie". There is plenty of evidence for interdependence, but not for "sudden appearance". You are mistaking lack of evidence for one thing for positive evidence for another. Also complete ignoring what data we do have in support of abiogenesis theories. Please don't assume that people you disagree with are lying.Elizabeth Liddle
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, this is simply a bald face lie!!! 'But your idea of “specialized interdependent bacterial life suddenly appearing on the face of the Earth as soon as was possible” is just as much (actually more) “imagination” than the idea that the LUCA had simpler ancestors.' For I have already listed several lines of evidence establishing the case for sudden appearance and interdependence, whereas you have merely asserted that what you imagine to be true for your atheistic conjectures is true! Moreover, your 'promising testable hypotheses' has already been tested to death and is in fact a wild goose chase!!!bornagain77
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Yes, the terraforming thing is interesting. But your idea of "specialized interdependent bacterial life suddenly appearing on the face of the Earth as soon as was possible" is just as much (actually more) "imagination" than the idea that the LUCA had simpler ancestors. At least we have some promising testable hypotheses abiogenesis.Elizabeth Liddle
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
And Elizabeth all I am saying is that the only hard physical evidence that you have, for your atheistic neo-Darwinian view, that 'the ancestors of the LUCA were simpler than the LUCA' is in your imagination. Whereas ID has hard physical evidence of a extremely complex web of biogeochemical 'terraforming' on the Earth, to eventually make the Earth hospitable for higher life-forms, as soon as we have evidence for water on the face of the earth from the earliest sedimentary rocks found on earth!!! Pretty much, it is a 'Big Bang' of specialized interdependent bacterial life suddenly appearing on the face of the Earth as soon as was possible!!!
Bring Me To Life Lyrics Excerpt: Oh, only You are the life among the dead Evanescence - Bring Me To Life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM
bornagain77
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
All I'm saying, ba77, is that evidence that the LCA was complex is irrelevant to the question as to whether the first one was. So the answer to Denyse's implied question:
If the last universal common ancestor was complex, as the researchers reasonably suggest … and how long ago was that? Then how did … ?
Is simply that the ancestors of the LUCA were simpler than the LUCA.Elizabeth Liddle
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
And yet Elizabeth, besides your imagination, where does this evidence exist for a 'simple' first common ancestor, much less evidence for a 'complex' last common ancestor? ,,, you do not even have any evidence for prebiotic chemistry. The oldest sedimentary rocks we find on earth already have signatures of 'specialized' bacterial life in them! notes:
The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918 Team Claims It Has Found Oldest Fossils By NICHOLAS WADE - August 2011 Excerpt: Rocks older than 3.5 billion years have been so thoroughly cooked as to destroy all cellular structures, but chemical traces of life can still be detected. Chemicals indicative of life have been reported in rocks 3.5 billion years old in the Dresser Formation of Western Australia and, with less certainty, in rocks 3.8 billion years old in Greenland. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=1 Life - Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4287513
The evidence scientists have discovered in the geologic record is stunning in its support of the anthropic hypothesis. The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of 'photosynthetic' life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks.
U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R
Moreover, evidence for 'sulfate reducing' bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria:
When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010 Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria. http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth
Thus we now have fairly conclusive evidence for bacterial life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found by scientists on earth. On the third page of this following site there is a illustration that shows some of the interdependent, ‘life-enabling’, biogeochemical complexity of different types of bacterial life on Earth.,,,
Microbial Mat Ecology – Image on page 92 (third page down) http://www.dsls.usra.edu/biologycourse/workbook/Unit2.2.pdf Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. - Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers
,,,Please note, that if even one type of bacteria group did not exist in this complex cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the third page of the preceding site, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacterial life that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but they must now also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their vital link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive for long periods of time. As well, though not clearly illustrated in the illustration on the preceding site, please note that the long term tectonic cycle, of the turnover the Earth’s crustal rocks, must also be fine-tuned to a certain degree with the bacterial life and thus plays a important ‘foundational’ role in the overall ecology of the entire biogeochemical system that must be accounted for as well.bornagain77
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
news, the last common ancestor is not the same as the first common ancestor. Just because the last common ancestor was complex doesn't mean the first was.Elizabeth Liddle
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
impasse is a drastic understatement, neo-Darwinists can't even explain how ANY first 'simple' protein 'naturally' came to be, much less a 'super' LUCA, which apparently 'sub-speciated' into all the domains of life, and which, of course, they have no biogeochemical evidence of. (i.e. the first biogeochemical evidence we have for life on earth is of Photosynthetic and of sulfate reducing bacteria): ================================== OT: New video on Don Johnson's book 'Programming of Life' Programming of Life - video playlist http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/0/k6iWX9nGocgbornagain77
September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
1 7 8 9

Leave a Reply