hckrnws
There's a theory that life actually originated not directly through photosynthesis based life, but originally from a very constant source of energy - the earth's crust - Hyperthermophile archaea - using non-oxygen based metabolism which migrated to the surface where photosynthesis evolved and took over as the core energy source.
All laid out in Paul Davies' book - fascinating read: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Fifth-Miracle/Pau...
Regarding Davies' book, what are the first four miracles that the title is referencing?
It's a Bible reference.
>The fifth miracle of Davies' title refers to Genesis 1:11: "Let the Land Produce Vegetation." (The first four Biblical miracles are the creation of the universe, the creation of light, the creation of the firmament and the creation of dry land.) It is proverbial in the popular science publishing world that God is good for sales, especially since Steven Hawking sold millions of copies of an otherwise unremarkable book by promising that a unified physical theory would enable us "to know the mind of God." Commercial requirements alone seem to have dictated that word "miracle," since Davies begins the book by disavowing it. Like other evolutionary scientists he starts with the presumption that "it is the job of science to solve mysteries without recourse to divine intervention." Life is not a miracle because scientists wish it to be a product of natural forces which they can explain.
Turbo Pascal, Porsche 911, Mtn Dew Throwback, Scarlett Johansson
Just spitballing, haven’t read the book
Nice
Similar to Nick Lane's work!
Actually this is not a theory. Photosynthesis came millions of years later than life. Plants are evolved from animals, not the other way around. Basic animals are less evolved than basic plants.
Plants and animals evolved from different lineages of eukaryotic organisms. They share a common ancestor, but plants did not evolve from animals. Plants evolved from green algae, while animals evolved from colonial protists.
I also take exception with the concept of "more" or "less" evolved. Do you mean "complexity"?
He is right though that, "Photosynthesis came millions of years later than life." And the parent post's claim, "There's a theory that life actually originated not directly through photosynthesis based life," misrepresents that it is a commonly held view that life originated not directly through photosynthesis based life. It is generally understood that life predates photosynthesis.
Yes, they are right that photosynthesis came later, but then veered way off track saying that plant evolved from animals.
The study is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52631-9
Lots of cool pictures if you like oceanography stuff.
It includes the actual photos of the animals in the subseafloor crust:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52631-9/figures/2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52631-9/figures/3
https://archive.is/I23NT - mirrored
I won't pretend to be a biologist, so forgive me if this is naïve, but this does feel like it's at least within the realm of possibility of working similarly on Europa, right? As in a non-zero chance at least.
It would be bold to declare it impossible. We know so little about abiogenesis. There might be a critical ingredient or condition that Earth had which Europa lacks.
Or maybe not. Europa’s ocean could be teeming with life.
Scary life that tries to eat the astronauts…
Discovery and detailed analysis of life on Europa in my lifetime would be amazing. Even better if we can get Attenborough there.
The title of the article is incorrect, the worms live in the crust, not "beneath the planetary crust" (in the magma).
The Economist magazine is not what it used to be, sadly.
We’ve known about tube worms for an awfully long time. If we found them in the mantle that actually would be worth a news article. This is middle school biology. And has been for decades.
I finally unsubscribed this summer.
For me the last straw was a piece they did on Julian Assange when he was still going through his kangaroo court debacle in the UK, a pure hit job. It was gruesome stuff.
This annoyed me as well.
Yeah, beneath the planetary crust is asking a lot.
Probably didn't want to settle for less but you take what you can get . . .
my personal take on evolution,is based on two fact like pieces of information, first is that life can perhaps be seen as extreamly complex assemblies of matter and energy and second that the universe is a vast field of energy gradients with a general mish mash of all of the possible elements of matter lodged in a variety of disks,spheres,blobs,and ribbons, leaving much of it open for life to work in some form which is just a re phaseing of what many have suggested is the feeling of the inevitability of life,which I might add,is miracle enough
I’ve always had the vague feeling that life is like little whirl pools in the river of energy flowing from low entropy to high entropy. Water can flow uphill if you observe only snippets of the journey.
Comment was deleted :(
> life can perhaps be seen as extreamly complex assemblies
Sounds similar to Assembly Theory as promulgated by Cronin et al
1) take a breath 2) the universe is big, really big...
paywall'd
Are we in the Dune timeline?
Yes, but we have to get through the Butlerian Jihad first.
This will inevitably happen. Life is more robust than electronic systems. The electronic systems will be destroyed for their aggression.
>Life is more robust than electronic systems. The electronic systems will be destroyed for their aggression.
Compelling argument. However from the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as though it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass you call a temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal.
Jokes aside life may be more robust but in a very narrow set of conditions where it evolved. Look at Mars for example. No life (as far as we know) but three robots happily wandering like what do you mean this planet isn't habitable? Atmosphere? Biomass? Planetary magnetic field? Tell me more
but those robots are also robust only in a narrow set of conditions: the short frame of their operative lifetime. life can survive in extremely harsh conditions for eons. really just a different subset of the conditons space, arguably bigger. life tends to, uh, find a way
Crafted by Rajat
Source Code