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

Paleo micro evolution and Gaia

Expand Messages
  • pawnfart
    Last night I pulled out and dusted off my Microbiology text and found myself typing and summerizing applicable sections for over four several hours. (You
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 17, 2002
      Last night I pulled out and dusted off my Microbiology text and found
      myself typing and summerizing applicable sections for over four
      several hours. (You should see what I do for fun :)). The details
      are in the next post if you want them.

      I still am doing more research on it, but here is some salient
      points. I found was that my memory of this text was very good and
      that not only is that "rare" intron really rare in the
      Archaebacteria, but only found in part of the Archaebacteria branch
      that one scholar calls for it to belong in a FOURTH grouping apart
      from Eukarotes and Eubacteria and rchaebacteria. I have a climate
      based reason why this is so, as well.

      If you want to help in this further research, there is a paper [G.J.
      Olsen, 1988, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biology 52:825] that if
      you could find it would be helpful. It is a family tree using 165
      rRNA mutations with a scale bar correpsonding to a 0.1 nucleotid
      substitution per sequence position. The tree is unrooted but the
      groupings of three to four are clear and the closest to the
      "progenote" is . . . drum roll . . . the methanogens. (Okay, drum
      roll from my perspective.) But this is just like DNA evidence in
      murder case--really powerful stuff.

      There are three main branches of Archeabacteria. The only intron
      found so far was in the sulfur "branch" and one scholar for this
      reason and a few others (we are talking paleo biology via genetic
      analaysis) wants to put these sulfur extremophiles in a new group. So
      you would have essentially have eukaryotes or complex creatures to
      include humans, bacterias, methane making and salt loving
      extremophiles, and the sulfur loving extremophiles. According to G.J.
      Olsen's work, the salt loving extremophiles are more related to the
      methanogens but also distant. Bacteria and complex life are very very
      distant. The very closet example to the "progenote" (least amount of
      mutations) of methanococcus I found some references to methane making
      in marches and eustury and oceans! See:


      Similar to oil, gas enters the environment due to both natural and
      anthropogenic processes. Among the major mechanisms of methane
      natural production in the biosphere, the decomposition of organic
      matter by methane-producing bacteria (e.g., Methanococcus,
      Methanosarica) deserves a special mention. These bacteria are able to
      get the energy by reducing carbon dioxide in accordance with CO2 +
      4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O reaction. These processes are typical for the silt
      deposits of lakes and marshes and for marine sediments that are
      lacking in oxygen and rich in organic matter.

      My conclusions from my Gaia perspective? Very important evolutionary
      idea here: once methanogens evolved the electrical insulation dynamic
      of modulating cirrus they ALSO WOULD CREATE MODULATION GOING THE
      OTHER WAY OF FEEDBACKS OF DRY CONDITIONS!!!!! Therefore, salt loving
      archaebacteria retained a symbiotic relationship with the methanogens
      and didn't have to evolve with as much complexity. Get it?

      Sulfur loving extremophiles start to have to evolve some complexity,
      but they too have a more distant symbiotic connection. Let's see if I
      can describe it. This one goes more to tectonics and carbon cycling.
      Just like there is a difference between an age where sweet crude
      (without sulfur) and clean coal are produced, the Gaia feedbacks of
      weathering would cause modulation to be dependant on the biological
      conditions toward CO2 and H2 that the methanogens metabolize to make
      methane. This would cause a volcanic pacing from weathering rates
      (more CO2 means more carbonic acid means more weather and so forth),
      but it could be done, and here is the key, INDEPENDANT of sulfur

      Sulfur increases weathering, but not locally. Therefore, the
      sulfur extremophiles required to evolve with complexity and could not
      just evolve to efficiency like the salt loving or methanogenic
      extremophiles could.

      Putting this together relative to climate change it is very strong
      circumstantial evidence of regional modulation of cirrus by
      electrical fields and variable resistance of the hydrate fields . .
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.