Direct Fossil Descendants

[xonenine]

I came back to see if you got the book yet, hehe.

it is a real bad binding, if I remember, Bantam or something, and I need a new used copy now that you brought it up and brought it up over and over.Maybe it's not the binding, maybe I read it too much.

At any rate, my 3rd or 4th copy will be about 4.25 on Amazon, I looked it up a few days ago, I think.Can't wait to read it again.

I like carbon, but my favoritist carbon is Carbon Nanotubes

(near the end, they talk about the possibilities for biological grafting, some interesting implications)

Edited January 12, 2011 by xonenine

[DNA]

I came back to see if you got the book yet, hehe.

it is a real bad binding, if I remember, Bantam or something, and I need a new used copy now that you brought it up and brought it up over and over.Maybe it's not the binding, maybe I read it too much.

At any rate, my 3rd or 4th copy will be about 4.25 on Amazon, I looked it up a few days ago, I think.Can't wait to read it again.

I like carbon, but my favoritist carbon is Carbon Nanotubes

(near the end, they talk about the possibilities for biological grafting, some interesting implications)

you have been very thoughtful. i still dont have the book. why do you like carbon nanotubes.

another question-----which prokaryote is most like h. saps. anything about our cells that could link us to some archaic bacteria.

[Fruitbat]

When comparing the cells of prokaryotes and eukaryotes you'll find that the macromolecules (proteins, carbohydrates, lipds, nucleic acids) all have the same fundamental organic structures. These structures are determined by the atoms that make up the molecules...which can only bind together in a limited number of ways. Once you get above the molecular level and start looking at structures, prokaryotes and eukaryotes both have cytoplasm (not identical in composition but very similar) and both contain ribosomes (the little organelles that are involved in protein production), through the ribosomes of prokaryotes are structurally different than those of eukaryotes. Many prokaryotes have cell walls which are, once again, similar but not identical to those of eukaryotic cells like fungi and plants. This is, by and large, where the similarities end. Prokaryotic cells do not have the other complex organelles (nuclei, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) that you find in eukaryotic cells.

On a different and fascinating note, there are a number of cell biologists who propose that mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells were originally prokaryotic cells that established a symbiotic relationship inside larger cells. This would mean that the mitochondria (that carry out cellular respiration in ALL eukaryotic cells) and the chloroplasts (that carry out essential photosynthesis in plant cells) are actually bacteria that live inside eukaryotic cells in a cooperative relationship. So...in addition to being descended from simple prokaryotic cells, eukaryotes (like humans) are actually carrying some of our ancestors around inside our cells and couldn't live without them!

This promises to become a VERY extensive and exhausting post!

-Joe

[xonenine]

On a different and fascinating note, there are a number of cell biologists who propose that mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells were originally prokaryotic cells that established a symbiotic relationship inside larger cells. This would mean that the mitochondria (that carry out cellular respiration in ALL eukaryotic cells) and the chloroplasts (that carry out essential photosynthesis in plant cells) are actually bacteria that live inside eukaryotic cells in a cooperative relationship. So...in addition to being descended from simple prokaryotic cells, eukaryotes (like humans) are actually carrying some of our ancestors around inside our cells and couldn't live without them!

This promises to become a VERY extensive and exhausting post!

-Joe

Hi Joe,

To go back a sec to the prokaryotes evolution , was it an abberation (or several) like the polymerization of a prokaryote that produced the eukaryotes, or a drawn out process?

Here I was thinking to myself how there are no good theories to make you gnash your teeth anymore, and Wikipedia has to go and say this:

" The eukaryotes are generally thought to have evolved later in the history of life^. However, some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification.."

I doubt it.(course it does say "current set", but lots of different models are in the running still it seems) ah, well, I guess next someone will say that their "molecular drive" kicked in and they decided to occupy another niche.

@DNA- I don't want to digress bout my wacky nanotubes now that the thread is firming up to what you were really asking.

Edited January 13, 2011 by xonenine

[DNA]

Hi Joe,

To go back a sec to the prokaryotes evolution , was it an abberation (or several) like the polymerization of a prokaryote that produced the eukaryotes, or a drawn out process?

Here I was thinking to myself how there are no good theories to make you gnash your teeth anymore, and Wikipedia has to go and say this:

" The eukaryotes are generally thought to have evolved later in the history of life^. However, some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification.."

I doubt it.(course it does say "current set", but lots of different models are in the running still it seems) ah, well, I guess next someone will say that their "molecular drive" kicked in and they decided to occupy another niche.

@DNA- I don't want to digress bout my wacky nanotubes now that the thread is firming up to what you were really asking.

OMG-------i never thought of it in that way. i was thinking ribosomes.

[piranha]

When comparing the cells of prokaryotes and eukaryotes you'll find that the macromolecules (proteins, carbohydrates, lipds, nucleic acids) all have the same fundamental organic structures. These structures are determined by the atoms that make up the molecules...which can only bind together in a limited number of ways. Once you get above the molecular level and start looking at structures, prokaryotes and eukaryotes both have cytoplasm (not identical in composition but very similar) and both contain ribosomes (the little organelles that are involved in protein production), through the ribosomes of prokaryotes are structurally different than those of eukaryotes. Many prokaryotes have cell walls which are, once again, similar but not identical to those of eukaryotic cells like fungi and plants. This is, by and large, where the similarities end. Prokaryotic cells do not have the other complex organelles (nuclei, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) that you find in eukaryotic cells.

On a different and fascinating note, there are a number of cell biologists who propose that mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells were originally prokaryotic cells that established a symbiotic relationship inside larger cells. This would mean that the mitochondria (that carry out cellular respiration in ALL eukaryotic cells) and the chloroplasts (that carry out essential photosynthesis in plant cells) are actually bacteria that live inside eukaryotic cells in a cooperative relationship. So...in addition to being descended from simple prokaryotic cells, eukaryotes (like humans) are actually carrying some of our ancestors around inside our cells and couldn't live without them!

This promises to become a VERY extensive and exhausting post!

-Joe

Glad to have you weigh in Joe .... you have a knack for making any heavy lift seem light as a feather!

[Auspex]

Glad to have you weigh in Joe .... you have a knack for making any heavy lift seem light as a feather!

Ditto that; it's the mark of a good teacher!

I think molecular biology is absolutely fascinating, but I need to have it pre-digested.

[Fruitbat]

piranha and Auspex...thanks for the compliment! Molecular biology CAN be a bit daunting sometime but, like Auspex, I find it absolutely fascinating! You can't really understand the amazing complexity of living (or fossil) organisms until you have at least a little knowledge of all of the chemical processes that have to take place in order for them to function!

xonenine...I don't buy the 'simplification' idea where modern prokaryotes evolved from more complex eukaryotes. If we look at the most ancient life forms that we have any real fossil record of (the cyanobacteria, i.e. stromatolites), they are photosynthetic prokaryotes. It seems a bit of a stretch to propose that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes and then 'simplified' back into modern prokaryotes again.

I remember back when Oparin's 'coacervate' was a major topic of discussion among people who were interested in 'abiogenesis' (the development of life from non-living molecular components). Though Oparin never did succeed in 'creating' a living thing...he did show that organic (carbon-containing)molecules will spontaneously combine under the right conditions to form more complex macromolecules. He then demonstrated that, again under the right conditions, organic macromolecules will assemble into structures that resemble simple living cells in many ways. While his approach has fallen out of favor in some circles...it still offers a tantalizing view of how life MIGHT have formed from non-living molecules.

-Joe

[tracer]

i still say that i like knowing a lot of stuff but i'm not willing to do hardly any "filling in the blanks", and i get real leery of those who kinda make a living or a reputation colorizing between the lines. havin' said that, ya'll can be descended from whoever you want, but i kinda figure i'm from a tribe that's gone extinct, cept for me and tj, and i'm not too sure about him...

[Fruitbat]

I believe I'm familiar with that 'tribe'....it's Texopithecus nonsensicus, isn't it?

-Joe

[tracer]

I believe I'm familiar with that 'tribe'....it's Texopithecus nonsensicus, isn't it?

-Joe

not sure but my cells ain't got bacertia runnin' dem, cuz i woulda got a memo or sompin on dat kinda drama

[piranha]

Lacking sufficient gravitas myself I present a most prescient principal:

"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would

never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men."

"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often

endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little

harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness."

-Charles Darwin

[xonenine]

Well, I had to read up some for I could say who I think my ancestor was, at this level anyway, and I'd say the "birth" was bout here maybe:

According to endosymbiosis theory, an anaerobic cell probably ingested an aerobic bacterium but failed to digest it. The aerobic bacterium flourished within the cell because the cell's cytoplasm was abundant in half-digested food molecules. The bacterium digested these molecules with oxygen and gained great amounts of energy. Because the bacterium had so much energy, it probably leaked some of it as Adenosine triphosphate into the cell's cytoplasm. This benefited the anaerobic cell because it enabled it to digest food aerobically. Eventually, the aerobic bacterium could no longer live independently from the cell, and it therefore became a mitochondrion.

when that thing leaked there, he's the one should be payin child support, so like you're sayin, I guess you want his name...

Edited January 14, 2011 by xonenine

[DNA]

so who is my ancestor family---------

archaea bacteria or

eubacteria?

[MarkGelbart]

DNA,

There is uncertainty over whether homo heidelbergensis is our closest ancestor or not because the fossil record is incomplete. Scientists don't know if a new discovery may find a link even more transitional than the above mentioned species.

****************************************************************

[xonenine]

no, no, let's leave him (eubacteria or bacteria) there for the moment, they will serve our purposes for now, and go to where?

The hot dilute soup, I guess? One of those guys who stood in a thermal upwelling somewheres to build a framework on himself?

Great breeding stock, I wouldn't have thought of doin that, he can be my ancestor.

[DNA]

no, no, let's leave him (eubacteria or bacteria) there for the moment, they will serve our purposes for now, and go to where?

The hot dilute soup, I guess? One of those guys who stood in a thermal upwelling somewheres to build a framework on himself?

Great breeding stock, I wouldn't have thought of doin that, he can be my ancestor.

so x19 are you saying we come from archaea bacteria rather than regular ones.

also what type of organism was the cause of us all.

[DNA]

how is the larva of the sea squirt related to us and the other chordates.

[Fruitbat]

In simplest terms, the tunicates (like the sea squirt) have a notochord (a dorsal nerve chord) during their larval stage. They share this characteristic with all other chordates which include ALL vertebrate animals.

-Joe

[DNA]

Sorry gang-------------

This discussion really tanked.I am surprised.

I thought this was the most spectacular natural

histories that could be discussed.

Thanks from DNA

[piranha]

Sorry gang-------------

This discussion really tanked.I am surprised.

I thought this was the most spectacular natural

histories that could be discussed.

Thanks from DNA

Sad really ... I agree 100% DNA!

The thread has been seeded nicely though, plenty here for those with any interest.

The subject is older than dirt so evolutionarily speaking it's still fresh as a daisy!

[Scylla]

OK, I missed this entire thread until now, and now I'll chime in.

Hi DNA and Welcome to the forum from Oregon!

Great topic and I'm sure this thread will have a fascinating wealth of information. We're dealing with rather large chunks of evolutionary time here. Leap frogging from the Devonian sea and the first steps of Tiktaalik rosae from water to land and fast forwarding to Darwinius masillae of the Eocene forest, the earliest fossil haplorhine primate lineage yet discovered. The esteemed paleontologists here at TFF will hopefully weigh in with the cladistic implications bearing on these matters that we may all benefit from their good works and understanding.

Darwinius masillae is a spectacular fossil, but NOT on a direct line to Great apes and hence us, sorry.

xonenine...I don't buy the 'simplification' idea where modern prokaryotes evolved from more complex eukaryotes. If we look at the most ancient life forms that we have any real fossil record of (the cyanobacteria, i.e. stromatolites), they are photosynthetic prokaryotes. It seems a bit of a stretch to propose that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes and then 'simplified' back into modern prokaryotes again.

I remember back when Oparin's 'coacervate' was a major topic of discussion among people who were interested in 'abiogenesis' (the development of life from non-living molecular components). Though Oparin never did succeed in 'creating' a living thing...he did show that organic (carbon-containing)molecules will spontaneously combine under the right conditions to form more complex macromolecules. He then demonstrated that, again under the right conditions, organic macromolecules will assemble into structures that resemble simple living cells in many ways. While his approach has fallen out of favor in some circles...it still offers a tantalizing view of how life MIGHT have formed from non-living molecules.

-Joe

I don't believe the simplification idea for bacteria either, DNA homology would indicate that did not happen. Oparin did NOT succeed in creating complex macromolecules from simple ones by any methods that are plausable for an early earth environment. Some believe this can occur from shock waves such as meteor impacts though. Others have shown spontaneous formation of many chemical building blocks of the critical macromolecules of life such as amino acids and even more complex structures such as lipid micelles.

not sure but my cells ain't got bacertia runnin' dem, cuz i woulda got a memo or sompin on dat kinda drama

Sorry Tracer, if you counted all the cells of your body (or any of ours) you would find that the bacteria outnumber the "human" cells. As far as mitochondria are concerned it is probable that they started out as symbiotes or parasites before becoming organelles by loosing parts (but not all) of their genome to the nucleus of the cell. Recently scientists have shown an intracellular bacteria close to becoming an organelle by this process. Ditto for chloroplasts.

Now if you want a simplified version of our family tree, abiotic chemicals (amonia, methane, water, stuff like that) was altered by heat, evaporation, electrical discharges, UV or other electromagnetic radiation into biomolecule precursors such as amino acids, lipids (fats, oils) and nucleic acids. These got linked together (maybe high energy impacts, maybe by adsobtion to certain clays) into longer chains like proteins and RNA. Those lipids can form bubble like things called micelles spontaneously under certain conditions. Some of those RNA molecles can perform some catalytic reactions (like making self copies and cutting other RNA molecules). Well if a micelle forms around some RNA that can copy itself, that's all you need to get evolution started, cause now these fat bubbles with self copying abilities can compete for resources and the best ones get more common.(that experiment's been done in a test tube too) The rest is just evolution, but you develop a more stable info storage molecule (DNA), a better set of catalytic molecules (preoteins, enzymes) and now we get to the stage of bacteria. A few different bacteria become symbionts, or host / parasite and you get eukaryotes (Plants, yeast,us but stromatolites arn't on our branch of the tree either). Multicellular forms develop and some develop bilateral symetry and a notochord (pikia) then jaws, then lungs, then legs, then hair and stapes (middle ear bone shaped like a stirrup) and live birth and oposable thumbs, upright bipedal stance and slowly larger brains. I've left out some of the names and details because I hate typing, and this is just off the top of my head, but I'm sure the rest of the community can fill in the blanks and correct my errors

edited for spelling

Edited January 30, 2011 by Scylla

[piranha]

Darwinius masillae is a spectacular fossil, but NOT on a direct line to Great apes and hence us, sorry.

Hey Scylla, no need for apologies but I think you're misinterpreting my comments in a very narrow way. My obvious context on Ida had nothing whatsoever to do with a direct lineage to us. I said it my original post that you quoted from; the earliest haplorhine fossil discovered seems to be the gist of it anyway. Furthermore, my comments here are a broad brush of a very grand theme and in any event whether Ida is a spectacular fossil or not has nothing to do with the overall point I was making in the first place.

You have an incredible wealth of knowledge, that's obvious, thanks for your great contribution on the subject.

[Raff]

Hey Scylla, no need for apologies but I think you're misinterpreting my comments in a very narrow way. My obvious context on Ida had nothing whatsoever to do with a direct lineage to us. I said it my original post that you quoted from; the earliest haplorhine fossil discovered seems to be the gist of it anyway. Furthermore, my comments here are a broad brush of a very grand theme and in any event whether Ida is a spectacular fossil or not has nothing to do with the overall point I was making in the first place.

You have an incredible wealth of knowledge, that's obvious, thanks for your great contribution on the subject.

There was a large involvement of the media for "Ida" but little or nothing to "Ardi" (Ardipithecus), far more important than "Ida"

[Scylla]

Hey Scylla, no need for apologies but I think you're misinterpreting my comments in a very narrow way. My obvious context on Ida had nothing whatsoever to do with a direct lineage to us. I said it my original post that you quoted from; the earliest haplorhine fossil discovered seems to be the gist of it anyway. Furthermore, my comments here are a broad brush of a very grand theme and in any event whether Ida is a spectacular fossil or not has nothing to do with the overall point I was making in the first place.

You have an incredible wealth of knowledge, that's obvious, thanks for your great contribution on the subject.

:bow: :bow: No, I just know a bit of molecular biology, but when it comes to fossils, I bow to your vastly superior knowledge base :bow: :bow:

But I interpreted the original poster's intent to trace out a family tree of sorts for H. Sapiens so I thought we should keep it clear who were our likely ancestors and who were our likely cousins