iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Life On Earth Evolved From 'Redundant' Chemical Systems, Scientists Say

Posted: 04/20/2012 8:14 am Updated: 04/20/2012 8:14 am

Earth First Life
The metabolism strategy of Earth's first life was the foundation for later splits on the tree of life, including the first major split between the ancestors of blue green algae (shown here in Guatemala's Lake Atitlán)

By: Charles Choi, LiveScience Contributor
Published: 04/19/2012 07:06 PM EDT on LiveScience

The earliest cells were unstable chemical systems that survived by combining a handful of shaky carbon-based assemblies together, researchers say.

All life on Earth is based on carbon. To create living matter from carbon, organisms carry out chemical reactions such as photosynthesis to generate organic compounds from the carbon dioxide in the environment. These mechanisms, known as carbon fixation, make up the largest bridge between Earth's nonliving chemistry and its life.

All organisms that fix carbon do so in one of six ways. It was unclear as to which of the six types came first, and how their development was linked with environmental and biological changes. Mapping the evolution of this vital chemistry would shed light on the roots of life on Earth.

Now scientists have traced the six methods of carbon fixation seen in modern life back to what may have been a single ancestral form.

Researchers created family trees for carbon-fixing mechanisms by looking at the collections of genes and aspects of metabolism underlying them and seeing how similar or different they were. From these patterns of relatedness, they reconstructed the complete evolutionary history of carbon fixation.

The earliest life that carried out carbon fixation apparently combined multiple carbon-fixing mechanisms together. This redundancy, not seen in modern cells, gave early life a robustness that compensated for the lack of refined control it had over its internal chemistry. [Photos: 8 Extreme Creatures]

"It seems likely that the earliest cells were rickety assemblies whose parts were constantly malfunctioning and breaking down," said researcher Eric Smith, a physicist at the Santa Fe Institute. "How can any metabolism be sustained with such shaky support? The key is concurrent and constant redundancy."

This redundancy was the foundation of later splits that created the earliest major branches in the tree of life. For example, the first major life-form split — between the branch holding the ancestors of blue–green algae and most other bacteria and the branch that includes Archaea, the other major early group of single-celled microorganisms — came with the earliest appearance of oxygen on Earth. Back then oxygen was toxic to organisms, since they had no way to make use of it. The peril oxygen posed caused these branches to diverge — these lineages apparently confronted oxygen at different points in history, after they had pursued different evolutionary paths, leading to different ways of responding to oxygen.

Once early cells had more refined chemistries — for instance, with membranes that could better control their contents, or enzymes that were better at controlling specific reactions — life developed in predictable ways in response to environmental factors such as increased alkalinity from carbonates. This stands in contrast to the common belief that luck dominated evolutionary innovations, and that rewinding and replaying evolutionary history might lead to a radically different tree of life.

"It appears basic chemistry and physics play an enormous role in the structure of early evolution, as opposed to things like random chance," researcher Rogier Braakman, a chemist at the Santa Fe Institute, told LiveScience.

It remains uncertain whether there was a single ancestral organism that possessed all these carbon-fixation mechanisms, Braakman said. "It could be that there was a community of tightly coupled organisms that regularly swapped their parts, which specific lineages came from later," he said. "Our approach does not distinguish between a single organism or a community of organisms at this point."

The researchers plan to look at other metabolic pathways, amino acid synthesis, to shed light on the larger picture of early evolution.

The scientists detailed their findings this week in the journal PLoS Computational Biology.

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW SCIENCE

Filed by Jacqueline Howard  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 917
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:53 PM on 04/23/2012
For those who deny the concept of "Creation"... I suggest you view the documentary, "God of Miracles" that is available on Netflix and Youtube... and at www.godofwondersvideo.org. The film cites miracles revealed through the aspects of God's Creation, such as mass energy... enormity of the university... modern scientific discoveries that confirm ancient Scriptural references to God's divine architecture such as, "treasuries of the snow"... DNA's self-correcting enzymes that indicate a "creating mind"... internal secrets of the complex seeds and their incredible design for growth and for perpetual supply of food... miniature solar panels contained in every plant leaf... and the flowers, without which, we could not survive... !!!:) As one ot the narrators states, "All parts have to fit together... at ONE TIME.

Revelation of extraordinary features of sea life are covered... such as the Chambered Nautilus that is as complex in many ways as humans... yet their fossils are among the oldest to be found. The film explores the unique characteristics and anatomy of the many types of birds such as hollow bones... air sacs... and aeronautical navigation abilities that is necessary for migration... and the details of the wing surfaces of a butterfly discovered only by the electron microscope that are designed with unforgiving tolerances. Ignore it or explore it... deny Him or consider the possibilities... !!!:)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:32 PM on 04/23/2012
Ooops... Make that "God of Wonders". Same thing... :) You will find it very interesting in that NONE of the Creations covered in this 84 minute film have EVER be "re-Created" by man... no matter what kind of "scientist" he might be... :) He can only mimic God by stealing his design in building boats, airplanes, and such... !!!:)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
04:39 PM on 04/23/2012
Apparently it has escaped your notice that to do airplanes right we had to ignore the 'design' of flying animals.

And... there are no animals that are like boats, so I'm not sure where the design-copying is supposed to be there.

No animal nuclear reactors either.

Plus, the inability for us to do something (for the moment, we are hard at work to change that) does not mean there is another entity that can.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:36 PM on 04/23/2012
Hey Dakky Doo... my responses to your comments here may be found by clicking "more comments"... :)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DakkonA
www.DisentangledReality.com
04:36 PM on 04/23/2012
Come on, Paulie Boy. Appeals to grandeur are meaningless arguments for or against anything.

And the parts DON'T all have to fit together perfectly at one time. Sorry to burst your complexity bubble.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:11 PM on 04/23/2012
I think we have proceeded beyond this type of rhetoric. Let's move our conversation to a higher level... as suggested in the commentaries just above here... :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:22 PM on 04/23/2012
I just read your post at 9:49... :) I do apologize for anything that could be interpreted as personal attacks... and there were some. No more:) If you are up for further exchange... let's both keep it civil... :) I only desire to enlighten and encourage... and insults and negative words from either side only get in the way. By the way... I am obviously "Paul"... but please provide me a name which I can use in addressing you... :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
11:55 AM on 04/21/2012
"All life is based on carbon..." I never thought of myself as a walking lead pencil. All life is based on carbon. That is like saying that the Mona Lisa is based on paint. Too simplistic. Even if you add chemicals to it, it doesn't addressed the building of an incredible complex structure of lfe. Disengenuine. There is a flower in Japan that is very simple to the eyes. Pretty nondescript. However it has 150 billion DNA base pairs in it's sequence. Fifty times longer than our's of three billion. Based on carbon and chemicals, uh? Give me a break.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ythri
01:28 PM on 04/21/2012
This is silly. The primary element that makes up all organic molecules is carbon. All nucleic acids, fats, and proteins have a carbon backbone. That's just a fact. It's hardly being simplistic to point that out.
photo
jondekonkeroo
Spells and remedies..
03:25 PM on 04/21/2012
yes, based on carbon and other elements, viz. oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and phosphorous. that's the whole shebang. there may be 150 billion base pairs in the sequence, but it's still the same elements, and the base pairs are still adenine, guanine,cytosine and thymine. a little basic knowlege of organic chemistry might help you there. That's about as much of a break as you're going to get.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
04:58 PM on 04/21/2012
Yea. If the flower of 150 billion DNA base pairs, the longest genome 50 times bigger than man, was a finished product today since life began 3 billion years ago, that would average TWELVE new DNA base pairs to the sequence PER MONTH. Wow. This isn't happening under our microscopes of any of the millions of species on earth. Why's that?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
writeminded
12:48 AM on 04/24/2012
This whole thread is ridiculous. If anyone has the definitive answer as to how life began, State it now. No one can do it because each question just asks another question. It's called an infinite regress. Eventually the universe has to point outside itself to explain its existence. The insults being thrown about are immature. Grow up and accept that you don't have the answer. The basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in "spontaneous generation" of the entire physical universe! Too simplistic?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Junius Gallio
We are the little folk, we.
07:55 PM on 04/20/2012
So we're talking early life, not abiogenesis. Pity--I'dnlove to see some more advanced work on that topic.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
flipacoin
Heads they win, tails we lose.
11:56 AM on 04/21/2012
Not having to look at abiogenesis let's them ignore the logistics of all the catch 22's coming together to form life. Don't expect any advanced work on the topic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Junius Gallio
We are the little folk, we.
12:12 PM on 04/21/2012
Keep thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night.
photo
jondekonkeroo
Spells and remedies..
03:27 PM on 04/21/2012
there's an abundance of advanced work on the topic including biosythesis that isn't in our lineage. I like the work from glasgow especially. it answers some interesting questions.
06:41 PM on 04/20/2012
What you read in Genesis is not creation, but restoration. God created the Earth billions of years ago, and gave it to Satan. When Satan rebelled against God, he was cast into hell, and earth was left in darkness and covered with ice (the "water" in evolution theory.) After so long, he restored the earth, but with different animals ( he decided not to re-create the dinosaurs), and createde man AND WOMAN to dominate the earth.. Satan hated the people and wanted to destroy them. He only partially succeeded
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whirlpool
founder walnut tree congregation
07:30 PM on 04/20/2012
Every day at the walnut tree congregation we have to do a reverse exorcism to try to put the demons (aka Satan) back in the churches where they belong because they keep trying to get out and infect everyone with a viral meme.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Junius Gallio
We are the little folk, we.
07:57 PM on 04/20/2012
"What you read in Genesis is not creation, but restoration."

Oh, hogwash. Nothing like that appears in Genesis--it's all your own eisegesis, an attempt to meld a mythic creation story (that was never intended to be taken as history) with actual history.

What you have in Genesis is creation from chaos--a common ancient near-east mythic creation concept.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PurpleTomato
Exile the Secessionists
06:36 PM on 04/20/2012
I'm not sure why creationists are drawn to the science section.Wouldn't the religion section be the appropriate place for the creationists and the fundamentalists to share and discuss their non-fact based feelings about the origin of life?
Superstition and myth are not science.
07:12 PM on 04/20/2012
Maybe you should check out the comment that appeared four minutes after yours - the one above. Or maybe not.

Creationists are right to sniff nervously around redundancy. It is a very evolutionary concept that cannot be manipulated easily into any creationist myth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whirlpool
founder walnut tree congregation
07:31 PM on 04/20/2012
They like to try to bask in the glow of the truth of science to give their ideology some faint patina of credibility. But it doesn't really work.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PurpleTomato
Exile the Secessionists
08:03 PM on 04/20/2012
Exactly.
photo
special38x2
Live, Love, & Laugh
05:38 PM on 04/20/2012
LOL, changing the face of religion might not be such a bad thing...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Llib Noswad
aka: Bill, Conservative
05:26 PM on 04/20/2012
I like the pic of lake Atitlán, I think that's me on the left.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Junius Gallio
We are the little folk, we.
07:58 PM on 04/20/2012
Is it? Next time, wave for the camera so we can see you. :)
04:03 PM on 04/20/2012
" The GWF Theory of The Universe = BAN, AN, N, S, P, & V, = BG."

There had to be a Creator, no matter what your religion calls him, ( GOD, Budda, Alla, & etc. ) there still had to be a Creator. Now that is not to dismiss that there also could have been, or is evolution, but NOBODY will ever know, or be able to figure it out until after there death, and NOBODY will ever be able to find out exactly how, or why The " Bang Bang " came about, and here is why, simply put. I have a Theory which I call ....
" The GWF Theory of The Universe = BAN, AN, N, S, P, & V, = BG."

1. ) " BAN " .... is Before Absolute Nothingness. ( Something that can NEVER be known,
or Realized, or Imagined by a Human Being. )
This also could have been a Quarantine State made by the “ Creator “ so The Universe,
and worlds like Earth could Grow, and Evolve like the “ Creator “ wanted it to without any
foreign Contamination Ruining this Experiment ?

Continued . # . 2 to 3, and 4, to 6 below.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Esmay
veteran, progressive,scoutmaster
08:11 PM on 04/20/2012
"There had to be a creator", why?
09:04 PM on 04/20/2012
Who created the creator? If the creator doesn't need a creator, why does the universe need a creator?
04:00 AM on 04/22/2012
There had to be a " Creator, or GOD," because even in a COMPLETE Vacuum as we know it today, there should NOT be a Single Particle, or ANYTHING else in a Complete Vacuum, just Vacuum, and Nothing else. Therefore with NO Particles, Materials, Germs, or Anything else in the Vacuum there would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for anything to Build On. ! So then NO Big Bang, not even a Small Poof. !...( . Just a Vacuum for ALL Eternity, how ever long that is, but Who Knows that. !. )

We as Humans CAN'T even Fathom what the " Absolute Nothingness, or Absolute Vacuum " is, we only know it as, we know it, and NOT as " The Creator, or GOD " would know it. !
Here is a Small Test, most everyone knows what the colors in this world are, so close your eyes, or go into a dark, or lighted place with NO Noise of any kind, and try to think of what " ABSOLUTE NOTHING " is like. " Absolute Nothing " would not even have a color of any kind.! ... You CAN'T do it can you. ?.. You THINK that you are seeing " NOTHING, " but you are always seeing DARK NOTHINGNESS, which means you are STILL seeing a color. ! .. It just can't be done. ! . ( Maybe a person that was blind before birth would know it, but they would NOT be able to Explain it
04:00 PM on 04/20/2012
Continued # . 2 to 3 below

2. ) " AN " ... is Absolute Nothingness. ( No Particles, No Vacuum, No Light, No Dark,
No colors... Just Nothing, a complete void of Everything, and it can NEVER be
PROVEN, or Disproven, because as soon as you try, it would then turn
Nothingness into Somethingness . )

3. ) " N " ... is Nothingness. ( The State Just before “ Somethingness, “ we can think
about it, but it also can NEVER be Proven, or Imagined. )

Continued below.. # . 4 to 6.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
etherialecho
Beware of absolutes.
07:51 PM on 04/20/2012
There is more to nothingness than meets the eye.
03:55 PM on 04/20/2012
4. ) " S " ... is Somethingness. ( Created Particles, and Vacuum start to appear for The "
Big Bang." ) You CAN prove this, and even imagine it, or think about it, because even
though it is just the start of Something, it is NOW there.

5. ) " BG " .. is The Big Bang. ( If there was EVER an Absolute Nothingness then The Big
Bang, and NONE of The Above would never have happened.... So Some type of a "
Creator" had to Design ALL of the Above in order for The Big Bang to happen, and
for MAN, & ANIMALS to EVOLVE, or be CREATED.

6. ) Who is the “ Creator, “ and who Created “ The Creator “ you ask ? . If you can’t get
past # 1. above, “ BAN “ how would you be able to find that out .? (.. After you die
you will get More a lot more Answers to your questions.! .. Whether you believe, or Not,
and Whether you go to
Church, or Not. ! ! . )
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:25 PM on 04/20/2012
Never heard it explained quite that way... but a lot of TRUTH just the same:) F&F.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UnderTheHedgeWeGo
Show me some evidence.
05:00 PM on 04/20/2012
THAT makes sense but Darwinian evolution does not? Is there nothing too silly for you to believe?

Why not just say "It's magic" and be done with it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thinkster
I Think, therefore I POST!
05:24 PM on 04/20/2012
No religion - no Gods or Demons - no Creator. Your post is nonsense, based on a false premise.

No Creators are required - the Cosmos stands alone and aloof. Current religion knows nothing useful at all - no credit to it - all false and foolish.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:30 PM on 04/20/2012
Awww... You're just trying to yank my chain and keep me going here on this thread. Won't happen. I can see you have nothing intellectual or interesting to offer. Any current or future readers will have enough commentary and links to keep them busy in searching for Truths, IF they're interested... :) Later.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:43 PM on 04/20/2012
A small flat piece of wood cannot catch a mouse on its own. Neither can a simple spring... nor a straight piece of metal... etc. It takes ALL these combined in a very special way. A cell is not a cell unless it has ALL the ingredients that makes it a cell. These ingredients cannot simply appear one at a time until everything is present so that the cell may function. It is amazing how such otherwise brilliant scientists believe such nonsense... or more likely... they are afraid to break rank and admit BELIEF in such extreme application of spontaneous life and evolution is ridiculous fantasy. It requires a stronger faith to accept these explanations than it does to believe in a Creator God... as Einstein, Galileo, Newton, and most all other giants in the field of science did. O.K. now liberal/atheist/evolution hypothesizers.... demonstrate your angry insults... !!!:)
03:48 PM on 04/20/2012
We don't need angry insults, we have the truth on our side.

Read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, he easily refutes your paragraph with that entire book.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:04 PM on 04/20/2012
Done did:) "There are glaring deficiencies in logic in Dawkins” arguments. It fools laymen who know little of the complexities of living things, but it should not fool anyone who is scientifically literate. Many of those who cite Dawkins” book to put down creationists know that it is a large dose of bluff. Dawkins is a rabid atheist and his mission in life is to use every tactic, fair or foul, to destroy Biblical Christianity. This can be easily documented. His books are self-confessed attempts at indoctrination." More at: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/21/response-blind-watchmaker)

Now Tanzy, may I encourage YOU to watch the documentary: "God of Wonders". It will certainly educate you on the misconceptions you have been plagued with for quite a while. I'd like to hear back after you sincerely watch it:) - Paul
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:22 PM on 04/20/2012
P.S. Tanzy, Dawkins has only two credentials. 1) "evolutionary biology"... which is unproven science at best, as it does NOT explain the origin of life OR the origin of man:) 2) "animal behavior"... which does NOT qualify one for any kind of expertise in the field of "science" through which he provides "opinions".... !!!:)
04:03 PM on 04/20/2012
DENIER DENIER PANTS ON FIRE!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:11 PM on 04/20/2012
:)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lukester
03:33 PM on 04/20/2012
God is an efficient creator?

http://audio.wbur.org/storage/2009/02/hereandnow_0218_3.mp3
03:24 PM on 04/20/2012
To the creationists arguing that god did it. When your arguments devolve into lame personal insults and even lamer threats of eternal damnation, it is clear to the rest of us that you actually have no valid argument and that you might as well finish off with a couple of statements like, "I will no longer be responding to any of your posts" and simply go away.

Or you could make things easier on yourselves by not even posting in the first place.

Thank you.
03:11 PM on 04/20/2012
Wow, you mean the scientist are telling us we came from combustable stuff from some tree? Well where does God fit in , in all these theories? Okay, I have joked enough about this. God created the Heavens and the Earth and all living things and He is alive and well and living in and around us all. It seems to me that like the atheist, scientist are trying thier best to prove that God doesn't exist! Some things scientist say are very interesting and could make a lot of scence, but when it comes down to it, God did it all and then rested on the seventh day!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:12 PM on 04/20/2012
This is a joke isn't it. The inane comments, the comically bad spelling. It's a parody right?
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
03:36 PM on 04/20/2012
Plurals? We don't need no stinkin' plurals!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trekkinbob
Reason, not religion.
03:22 PM on 04/20/2012
Scientists are doing no such thing. They're too busy making your life more comfortable while you are able to spew your ideas on implements that they invented. Besides, the onus is on you to prove there is such a thing as "god" muchless the angry genocidal one you believe in.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RetiredLtCPD
I stand with our brothers and sisters in Boston.
04:12 PM on 04/20/2012
I believe with all of my heart and mind that ther is a God, the Creator of everything. I feel no onus to prove anything to you, though. My relationship with God is mine and mine alone. I do not need you, or anyone else to approve. You may certainly believe as you wish. Why is it so important to you that other people believe as you do?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Haley Heaps Stevenson
Almost Free
02:56 PM on 04/20/2012
WOW! Can't believe all the people on this thread that still cling to the notion that any scientific research is automatically deemed as 'manure'. Keep on clingin' to y'alls bibles, meanwhile, we will be watching scientists complete ground-breaking studies to further our understanding of the world around us! Fascinating! You can stick your head in the sand and pray.
04:16 PM on 04/20/2012
The main reason why the "Big Bang Theory" was given credence is because the fossil record does not and never has supported the theory of evolution. I don't condemn all science, just those who are so desperate to discount a creator. You all say, "prove there is a God". I say, "prove there isn't one".
photo
Rippington
Highly opinionated and most likely will offend you
04:35 PM on 04/20/2012
And THAT is an incredibly ridiculous position to take.

Atheists do not believe in any God/s... because there is no evidence of one/any existing. There is nothing TO disprove.

The one that makes the positive claim has the onus of proving their position.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ythri
05:20 PM on 04/20/2012
The Big Bang Theory is a cosmological theory. Even if it were totally false, it would say nothing about whether or not the theory of evolution is true.

Oh, and you are just lying by claiming that the fossil record doesn't support evolution. What is definitely doesn't support it the belief that all animals were created in their current form at one time. Creationism fall apart as soon as you dig up the first trilobite fossil.