Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

More Bio 101 for meterologists

Expand Messages
  • pawnfart
    Leading researchers in the biological community hold that the inner chemistry/DNA of the Archae points to it being the closest in relation to the progenate .
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 14, 2002
      Leading researchers in the biological community hold that the inner
      chemistry/DNA of the Archae points to it being the closest in
      relation to the "progenate".

      Simply by the distances of parts of the make up of the cell to each
      other. This is the stuff that showed OJ WAS BLEEDING next to Nicole.
      BUT, that some of the Archae do not have ATP as the energy exchange
      unit throughout the cell. ALTHOUGH methanogens DO use ATP AND all
      other non-Archae live uses ATP. SO, the question becomes why the
      common metabolic dynamic?

      Up to the point where methanogens evolved Gaia, I POSTULATE, they
      existed in a much more chaotic behaving chemical and heat exchanging
      world. Read--extremes. That is why these Archae--also known as
      extremophiles, or extreme existing creatures, evolved membranes that
      were able to take extreme ecological conditions. In their case,
      before chemistry and temperature were modulated by their own
      existance, the extremes places on earth counterintuitively offered
      more chemical and heat dynamic stability. For instance, there is a
      discussion of Archae in thermosynthesis theory:


      What is thermosynthesis ?
      The basic tenet of Anthonie Muller's personal thermosynthesis (TS)
      theory is that thermal cycling and thermal gradients yielded the
      scaffolding for the origin and evolution of life.

      Convection can cause the thermal cycling required for
      thermosynthesis: the content of a convection cell is continuously
      thermally cycled. In the volcanic hot spring covered with ice shown,
      convection must in particular be intense because of the large
      temperature difference between the top and the bottom.

      As it yields the required simple energy source, thermosynthesis (TS)
      considerably simplifies the problem of the origin of life. Moreover,
      the emergence of the contemporary biological energy conversion
      machinery is easily modelled.
      Many basic physiological phenomena invoke thermal - or light -
      cycling: cell division, germination, flowering, budding, heat shock.
      This thermoperiodism and photoperiodism may be relics from
      In many niches organisms or parts of organisms are thermally cycled:
      Archaebacteria in convecting volcanic hot springs, organisms
      vertically migrating through thermoclines in natural waters,
      chloroplasts and mitochondria in the protoplasm stream within leaf
      cells. TS may play a role here.
      Biochemical regulatory mechanisms such as regulation by protein
      phosphorylation or by the Ca2+ ion can be interpreted as methods for
      mimicking thermal cycling that were acquired later in evolution
      during the transition from living at a fluctuating temperature to
      living at a constant temperature.
      On biological heat engines
      In thermosynthesis an organism, more specifically, some of its
      enzymes or its membranes, functions essentially as a heat engine. At
      a first glance the proposed similarity between heat engines such as
      the steam engine and biochemical objects may seem farfetched. A
      simple analogy may help:
      In the steam engine water is thermally cycled: liquid water is heated
      in a boiler, and evaporates, turns into steam - a phase transition;
      the expanding steam performs external work; in the condensor the
      steam turns again into liquid water, the reverse phase transition.
      In the two thermosynthesis mechanisms a protein or a membrane is
      similarly thermally cycled, and undergoes a phase transition-like
      process as well (to an unfolded respectively more fluid state). The
      external work is done during the release of the synthesized ATP.

      In a steam engine the product, work that is done, is obtained at the
      outside of the system, while in thermosynthesis the product is formed
      within the system where ADP and phosphate are 'pushed together' to
      form the ATP that is later released. This difference in topology is
      however not important.[unquote]

      Now, here is the kicker. This idea of membrane biochemistry and ATP
      exchanges is but one solution to an internal problem for the cells--
      how to regulate its chemistry and provide energy to do this. This was
      a complex evolutionary response to extreme ecological conditions when
      it first evolved. YET, since Archae evolved, they have NOT evolved
      any other significant complexity. You can argue about whether this
      lack of evolution was micro or macro or millions or billions of years
      until the cows come home--it doesn't change the existing genetics of
      the Archae compared to all other life. In short, the Archae stopped
      evolving anything complex about themselves except for metabolic
      things that have more to do with the symbiotic relationships I am
      about to discuss.

      Other life forms HAVE had to evolve more complex genetics. YET, this
      complexity is NEVER away from the basic metabolic chemistry of Gaia--
      BECAUSE without that metabolic chemistry there is no longer a
      symbiotic relationship with methanogens to provide for regulation of
      GLOBAL biological conditions. In short, life after Archae evolved
      within the context of a biologically regulated climate and chemistry.

      This context also further defined the metabolic limitations of the
      genetics of creatures which evolved in their ATP processes ability
      with photosyntheses to turn energy from the sun into ATP. That is
      because in order for this to occur within the symbiotic parameters as
      defined by Gaia these creatures had to be connected, via hydrology,
      to the methanogens. Therefore, if plants were to evolve a nervous
      system, it would have lead to mobility toward there survival as a
      individual creature that was not supportive of the whole community,
      and, these branch would not have found the hydrology to survive.

      Still more complex creatures have evolved nervous systems, but yet
      even these creatures remain metabolically defined by the modulation
      of a living earth.


      See tree at end of article.

      Since many archaea are also hyperthermophiles and may be the most
      ancient life-forms on the planet, the investigators speculate that
      the archaea gave genes to A. aeolicus rather than the other way
      around. Moreover, suggests Koonin, those genes may have endowed A.
      aeolicus with its ability to thrive at high temperatures. . .

      Although the pace of gene transfer today impresses scientists, it may
      pale compared with the gene swapping that went on in life's earliest
      days. Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, who first argued that
      archaea deserved a separate branch on the evolutionary tree, has
      proposed that the first forms of life on Earth were simple cells—
      progenotes, Woese dubs them—that engaged in unusually rampant gene

      "The primitive lateral gene transfer envisioned is very unlike that
      seen today," he wrote in a 1998 article. "The high frequency of
      lateral transfer reflected the simplicity of the progenote's genetic
      mechanisms and the lack of barriers to lateral exchange."

      If so, early life may have essentially had a communal genome rather
      than a fixed one for each cell. Indeed, this gene sharing may have
      encouraged the rapid evolution of life.
      "The fact that innovations could easily spread through the population
      by lateral transfer gave the progenote community enormous
      evolutionary potential," says Woese. How's that for a lesson on the
      importance of sharing?" [unquote]


      Lateral gene sharing and determination of what is the "root" actually
      points toward something that forced non-complexity in the genes of
      Archae--rather than retaining this ability to obtain genetics from
      other sources. Again--away from complexity. That points to a living
      earth that found its modulation of chemistry and temperature from the

      Why don't plants have brains?

      Methane is the electron receiptor for methanogens, and so is correct
      in that is what ultimately is symbiotic--that it requires carbon
      based metabolism. I was thinking of a more complex explaination using
      as the common metabolic medium ATP. It turns out that when the Archae
      evolved and so did Gaia that Gaia defined the course of Archae
      evolution thereafter, but also defined the other super groups to stay
      within the metabolic parameters of the methanogens--to do otherwise
      was to become outside of the feedbacks of hydrology, UV protecting
      clouds, and chemistry that the hydrology brought.

      "ATP is the energy currency of most living systems on earth (all
      higher organisms, but not some archae (three branches of life:
      archae, eubacteria (prokaryotes), eukaryotes)).

      ATP + H2O ® ADP + H3PO4 (Pi = "inorganic phosphate") DGo = -30.6

      It is this large free energy which is coupled to various other
      reactions to drive the myriad of energy-requiring processes in life."


      Turns out methanogens make ATP unlike some of the Archae.


      Plants simply evolved a way to take the sun's energy and make ATP--
      but if plants were to evolve another metabolic pathway they would
      lost the hydrology. If they evolved a nervous system, they would
      evolve complexity to MOVE, and hence leave the hydrology, and again,
      perish. Or lose the temperatures required for life. Or the chemistry
      from the hydrology. Or the tectonic changes that recycled ATP based
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.