https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of lifeanalyses of ATP synthase genes, together with ribosomes, have played a key role in inferring and rooting the tree of life. We reconstruct the evolutionary history of ATP synthases using an expanded taxon sampling set and develop a phylogenetic cross-
Abstract
The timing of early cellular evolution, from the divergence of Archaea and Bacteria to the origin of eukaryotes, is poorly constrained. The ATP synthase complex is thought to have originated prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) and
Our cross-braced, dated tree of life also provides insight into more recent evolutionary transitions including eukaryogenesis, showing that the eukaryotic nuclear and mitochondrial lineages diverged from their closest archaeal (2.67-2.19 Ga) andbacterial (2.58-2.12 Ga) relatives at approximately the same time, with a slightly longer nuclear stem-lineage.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:06:48 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:analyses of ATP synthase genes, together with ribosomes, have played a key role in inferring and rooting the tree of life. We reconstruct the evolutionary history of ATP synthases using an expanded taxon sampling set and develop a phylogenetic cross-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
This is in *Nature Communications*, not to be confused with THE journal *Nature*.
And this article doesn't look too solid.
ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life
Abstract
The timing of early cellular evolution, from the divergence of Archaea and Bacteria to the origin of eukaryotes, is poorly constrained. The ATP synthase complex is thought to have originated prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) and
This seems to be very imprecise compared to the following excerpt from the paper:considering the Moon-forming impact at 4.52 Ga, though both ages imply a rapid origin of LUCA following this putative sterilization event."
"We estimate that LUCA lived 4.52–4.32 Ga and 4.52–4.42 Ga in the braced and non-braced analysis, respectively (Fig. 5A, Supplementary Fig. 16). Ages towards the younger end of the spectrum from our braced analysis seem more plausible
Never mind the "sterilization event": we seem to be breathlessly close to the origin
of the earth itself. The following would date the difference at ca. 20 million years:
"The Hadean eon started with the planet's formation about 4.54 Bya,[3][4] now defined as (4567.30 ± 0.16) Mya[1] set by the age of the oldest solid material in the Solar System found in some meteorites about 4.567 billion years old.[5]"
I don't think any respected OOL researcher would think that abiogenesis would be far
advanced a mere 20 ma after the formation of the earth. So "sterilization" is
a figure of speech.
But this is a side-show to the main event: we are asked to believe that true prokaryotes (the LUCA) were present from 120 to 220 million years after
the formation of the earth. This is such a short time span compared to
the next major event [the advent of eukaryotes, see below] that it improves the odds of directed panspermia (DP) being the origin of earth life versus homegrown abiogenesis.
Of course, there are many factors to be weighed in addition to the time span,bacterial (2.58-2.12 Ga) relatives at approximately the same time, with a slightly longer nuclear stem-lineage.
so I won't try to estimate the probability of DP at this point.
Now, if the formation of the moon came 100 million years after that of
the earth, then the probability of life arising on Mars and brought here
by meteorites becomes significant contributor to the probability calculations.
But 20 million hardly seems long enough for life as we know it
to originate anywhere, even Mars.
Our cross-braced, dated tree of life also provides insight into more recent evolutionary transitions including eukaryogenesis, showing that the eukaryotic nuclear and mitochondrial lineages diverged from their closest archaeal (2.67-2.19 Ga) and
I know of no reason to be suspicious of these dates, but they are about 2 Ga. after
the hypothesized LUCA -- why did we have to wait so long in comparison to the
time spans we see for that earlier event above?
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:26:52 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:analyses of ATP synthase genes, together with ribosomes, have played a key role in inferring and rooting the tree of life. We reconstruct the evolutionary history of ATP synthases using an expanded taxon sampling set and develop a phylogenetic cross-
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:06:48 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
This is in *Nature Communications*, not to be confused with THE journal *Nature*.
And this article doesn't look too solid.
ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life
Abstract
The timing of early cellular evolution, from the divergence of Archaea and Bacteria to the origin of eukaryotes, is poorly constrained. The ATP synthase complex is thought to have originated prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) and
considering the Moon-forming impact at 4.52 Ga, though both ages imply a rapid origin of LUCA following this putative sterilization event."This seems to be very imprecise compared to the following excerpt from the paper:
"We estimate that LUCA lived 4.52–4.32 Ga and 4.52–4.42 Ga in the braced and non-braced analysis, respectively (Fig. 5A, Supplementary Fig. 16). Ages towards the younger end of the spectrum from our braced analysis seem more plausible
Never mind the "sterilization event": we seem to be breathlessly close to the origin
of the earth itself. The following would date the difference at ca. 20 million years:
"The Hadean eon started with the planet's formation about 4.54 Bya,[3][4] now defined as (4567.30 ± 0.16) Mya[1] set by the age of the oldest solid material in the Solar System found in some meteorites about 4.567 billion years old.[5]"
I don't think any respected OOL researcher would think that abiogenesis would be far
advanced a mere 20 ma after the formation of the earth. So "sterilization" is
a figure of speech.
But this is a side-show to the main event: we are asked to believe that true
prokaryotes (the LUCA) were present from 120 to 220 million years after the formation of the earth. This is such a short time span compared to
the next major event [the advent of eukaryotes, see below] that it improves
the odds of directed panspermia (DP) being the origin of earth life versus homegrown abiogenesis.
How so? Do you suppose the earth looked inviting so early?
Of course, there are many factors to be weighed in addition to the time span,
so I won't try to estimate the probability of DP at this point.
Now, if the formation of the moon came 100 million years after that of
the earth, then the probability of life arising on Mars and brought here by meteorites becomes significant contributor to the probability calculations.
But 20 million hardly seems long enough for life as we know it
to originate anywhere, even Mars.
bacterial (2.58-2.12 Ga) relatives at approximately the same time, with a slightly longer nuclear stem-lineage.Our cross-braced, dated tree of life also provides insight into more recent evolutionary transitions including eukaryogenesis, showing that the eukaryotic nuclear and mitochondrial lineages diverged from their closest archaeal (2.67-2.19 Ga) and
I know of no reason to be suspicious of these dates, but they are about 2 Ga. after
the hypothesized LUCA -- why did we have to wait so long in comparison to the
time spans we see for that earlier event above?
It's lots harder to make eukaryotes than prokaryotes. After all, it took another 2 GY make multicellular life.
The two things that strike me most are: 1) life appeared VERY early, and 2) conditions required are VERY broad
(liquid water, not too hot).
Taken together they suggest that in Gould's phrase "life may be as common as quartz".
Of enormous interest would be chemical evidence from other sites in the solar system to see how they compare
with earths', Mars has a better chance than Europa, say, or any of the more remote solar system sources.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:analyses of ATP synthase genes, together with ribosomes, have played a key role in inferring and rooting the tree of life. We reconstruct the evolutionary history of ATP synthases using an expanded taxon sampling set and develop a phylogenetic cross-
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:26:52 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:06:48 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42924-w
This is in *Nature Communications*, not to be confused with THE journal *Nature*.
And this article doesn't look too solid.
ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life
Abstract
The timing of early cellular evolution, from the divergence of Archaea and Bacteria to the origin of eukaryotes, is poorly constrained. The ATP synthase complex is thought to have originated prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) and
considering the Moon-forming impact at 4.52 Ga, though both ages imply a rapid origin of LUCA following this putative sterilization event."This seems to be very imprecise compared to the following excerpt from the paper:
"We estimate that LUCA lived 4.52–4.32 Ga and 4.52–4.42 Ga in the braced and non-braced analysis, respectively (Fig. 5A, Supplementary Fig. 16). Ages towards the younger end of the spectrum from our braced analysis seem more plausible
Never mind the "sterilization event": we seem to be breathlessly close to the origin
of the earth itself. The following would date the difference at ca. 20 million years:
Your response below may indicate that you disagree with the following paragraph:"The Hadean eon started with the planet's formation about 4.54 Bya,[3][4] now defined as (4567.30 ± 0.16) Mya[1] set by the age of the oldest solid material in the Solar System found in some meteorites about 4.567 billion years old.[5]"
I don't think any respected OOL researcher would think that abiogenesis would be far
advanced a mere 20 ma after the formation of the earth. So "sterilization" is
a figure of speech.
bacterial (2.58-2.12 Ga) relatives at approximately the same time, with a slightly longer nuclear stem-lineage.But this is a side-show to the main event: we are asked to believe that true
prokaryotes (the LUCA) were present from 120 to 220 million years after the formation of the earth. This is such a short time span compared to the next major event [the advent of eukaryotes, see below] that it improves
the odds of directed panspermia (DP) being the origin of earth life versus
homegrown abiogenesis.
How so? Do you suppose the earth looked inviting so early?Of course, but after 100 mya, not 20. By that time, the oceans might
have been ripe for a "seeding" by prokaryotes, what with all the
organic compounds of the sort that have been produced by OOL
researchers under primitive earth conditions. A veritable feast,
especially of nucleotides, lipids, and amino acids,
so essential to prokaryotes.
Still, I prefer the upper limit of 220 provided by the article we
are assessing. By that time, the panspermists might have
decided that abiogenesis was going so slowly that there
was (1) no chance of destroying existing life and
(2) a great chance to jump-start sophisticated, rapidly
reproducing life with unlimited potential for evolution
within the framework of Sol's expected longevity.
Of course, there are many factors to be weighed in addition to the time span,
so I won't try to estimate the probability of DP at this point.
Now, if the formation of the moon came 100 million years after that of the earth, then the probability of life arising on Mars and brought here by meteorites becomes significant contributor to the probability calculations.
Again, Erik, do you disagree with this?But 20 million hardly seems long enough for life as we know it
to originate anywhere, even Mars.
Our cross-braced, dated tree of life also provides insight into more recent evolutionary transitions including eukaryogenesis, showing that the eukaryotic nuclear and mitochondrial lineages diverged from their closest archaeal (2.67-2.19 Ga) and
I know of no reason to be suspicious of these dates, but they are about 2 Ga. after
the hypothesized LUCA -- why did we have to wait so long in comparison to the
time spans we see for that earlier event above?
James Tour is irrelevant to anything discussed here. Photosynthetic bacteria developed ~2 GY afterIt's lots harder to make eukaryotes than prokaryotes. After all, it took another 2 GY make multicellular life.It is worse than useless to base such conclusions on a single sample, which could
be utterly anomalous IF earth life is the result of home-grown abiogenesis..
The two things that strike me most are: 1) life appeared VERY early, and 2) conditions required are VERY broadAnd...and...? unless photosynthetic bacteria arise almost magically, you are missing
(liquid water, not too hot).
at least ten essential elements for life a we know it. And even these require oodles
of carbon dioxide.
But it is widely believed that photosynthesis only began hundreds of millions
of years after the first prokaryotes.
Taken together they suggest that in Gould's phrase "life may be as common as quartz".You are really into building castles in the air. Take a look at the thread I began about
an hour and a half before my first response to you. Your hero John Harshman weighed in soon thereafter, and my response to him came a little over an hour ago.
In it, I implicitly introduce the thesis of how incredibly difficult it is to figure out a plausible path
to the first prokaryote:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/vkewFZdg_9g/m/bD1aavw6AgAJ
Re: JAMES TOUR VICTORIOUS?!
Of enormous interest would be chemical evidence from other sites in the solar system to see how they compareIt would only be of enormous interest if you could dovetail it with the dates
with earths', Mars has a better chance than Europa, say, or any of the more remote solar system sources.
that this Nature Communications article assert so confidently.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 75:19:11 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,382 |
| Messages: | 5,432,540 |