Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Live Science: Massive tentacled microbe may be direct ancestor of all complex life

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nicoletta Lanese writes:

Ancient microbes whose existence predates the rise of nucleus-carrying cells on Earth may hold the secrets to how such complex cells first came to be. Now, for the first time, scientists have grown a large enough quantity of these microbes in the lab to study their internal structure in detail, Science reported.

a micrograph of an ancient microbe with a spherical main cell body and bumpy tentacles that extend outwards in all directions
Scientists recently captured detailed images of an Asgard archaeon, an evolutionarily ancient microbe that may have been key to the emergence of complex life on Earth. 
(Image credit: © Thiago Rodrigues-Oliveira, Univ. Wien)

Researchers grew an organism called Lokiarchaeum ossiferum, which belongs to a group of microbes known as Asgard archaea, according to a new report, published Wednesday (Dec. 21) in the journal Nature. Named after the abode of the gods in Norse mythology, Asgard archaea are thought by some scientists to be the closest evolutionary relatives of eukaryotes, cells that package their DNA in a protective bubble called a nucleus. 

On the evolutionary tree of life, Asgards often appear as a “sister” of eukaryotes or as their direct ancestor, Jan Löwe, leader of the Bacterial Cytoskeleton and other Molecular Machines research group at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the U.K., wrote in a commentary about the new study. Asgards don’t carry nuclei themselves, but they do contain a suite of genes and proteins that were once thought to be unique to eukaryotes. Researchers have a variety of theories as to how Asgards may have gained primitive nuclei and thus birthed the first complex cells, which later gave rise to plants, animals and humans.  

In 2020, a research group in Japan reported that, after 12 years of work, they’d successfully grown Asgards in the lab

“It has taken six long years to obtain a stable and highly enriched culture, but now we can use this experience to perform many biochemical studies and to cultivate other Asgard archaea as well,” co-senior author Christa Schleper, leader of the archaea ecology and evolution lab at the University of Vienna, said in a statement.

Gathered from mud in a canal on the coast of Piran, Slovenia, the L. ossiferum specimens have funky tentacles that extend from the body of each cell; odd bumps and bulges appear along the length of each appendage. These “surface protrusions” may support the idea that, at some point in evolutionary history, an Asgard grabbed a passing bacterium using similar extensions of its membrane and sucked the bacterium into its cell body, and this led to the development of the nucleus, Löwe wrote. The protrusions support the idea that such an interaction could have occurred, he explained. 

L. ossiferum also carries tiny, lollipop-like structures on its surface, which “look like they come from another planet,” Thijs Ettema, an environmental microbiologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands who wasn’t involved in the work, told Science. The microbe also contains structural filaments that closely resemble those seen in the cytoskeleton, or supporting scaffold, of eukaryotic cells, Löwe wrote.

Some scientists think the new study strengthens the hypothesis that Asgards are eukaryotes’ direct ancestor, but not everyone is convinced. Read more in Science.

Full article at Live Science.

The following statement by researchers lacks a certain quality of scientific professionalism: “These ‘surface protrusions’ may support the idea that, at some point in evolutionary history, an Asgard grabbed a passing bacterium using similar extensions of its membrane and sucked the bacterium into its cell body, and this led to the development of the nucleus.” Can anybody pinpoint how this statement falls short of scientific expectations, beyond perhaps the elementary school level?

Comments
Can anybody pinpoint how this statement falls short of scientific expectations, beyond perhaps the elementary school level?
Hardly any worse than inferring that ID is supported by the “fact” that all sources of FSCO/I above 500-1000 bits are intelligence.Sir Giles
December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Of semi-related note. Just uploaded last night from Dr. Tour:
Dr. Tour DROWNS Religion of Unprotected Side-Chains in Water - Bruce Lipshutz, Part 01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_on6LK6Etc
Previous episodes:
Episode 1: Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup - Lee Cronin Part 01 https://youtu.be/4rwPi1miWu4 Episode 2: Dr. Tour DISSECTS Chemistry of an ‘Expert’ on Origin of Life - Lee Cronin, Part 02 https://youtu.be/aUOZh4zmrXo Episode 3: Dr. Tour BURSTS Oil Bubble Chemistry and More - Lee Cronin, Part 03 https://youtu.be/v3A8_ezYlZY
Upcoming episode on Jan. 2:
Dr. Tour EXPOSES Troll Behavior & Forgives Chemist in the Crossfire - Bruce Lipshutz, Part 02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5PfBzQUjW8
bornagain77
December 27, 2022
December
12
Dec
27
27
2022
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Researchers grew an organism called Lokiarchaeum ossiferum, which belongs to a group of microbes known as Asgard archaea, according to a new report, published Wednesday (Dec. 21) in the journal Nature.
Fascinating! It has no nucleus, but does have genes!
Those findings add to recent work showing Asgard archaea possess genes once thought to exist only in more complex organisms—another indication they may be an important evolutionary precursor.
Or instead of an evolutionary precursor, maybe an indication of an evolutionary loss such as in blind cave fish, which certainly are not considered an evolutionary precursor of sighted fish. Consider how ridiculous this sounds: "Those findings add to recent work showing blind cave fish (Astyanax jordani) possess genes once thought to exist only in more complex organisms—another indication they may be an important evolutionary precursor."
Its cell wall, too, is complex, with tiny lollipop structures sticking out, as if to sample the environment. “Overall, the cellular structures of [these cells] look like they come from another planet,” Ettema says.
More complexity? Came from another planet? Ohhhh, they mean that there’s no evolutionary similarity to other organisms on earth. How does that support Darwinism? Or maybe they really did come from another planet.
But not everyone agrees. Some evolutionary biologists, including Patrick Forterre of the Pasteur Institute, have argued the family trees built based on comparing certain genes from Asgard and eukaryotes don’t support Asgard archaea playing such a predominant role in the birth of eukaryotes.
Really? I wonder why not.
And last year, Sven Gould, an evolutionary cell biologist at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf calculated that Asgard archaea contributed very little to the first eukaryotes, as little as 0.3% of the protein families believed to exist in the common ancestor of the eukaryotes.
That’s essentially zero. And this is an important evolutionary precursor based on . . . what? How about instead that Lokiarchaeum ossiferum demonstrates just how absolutely clueless we are with regard to the sudden appearance of life on earth? -QQuerius
December 26, 2022
December
12
Dec
26
26
2022
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply