Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Right. As CharonY has said, chemolithotrophs* came before. I overlooked those because I was thinking in terms of a plant/animal dichotomy. Other things came before and probably exploited a wide variety of red-ox reactions. Some organisms "respirated" H2S from volcanoes, but they didn't get a sweet deal in energetic terms, I think. Nothing like the 36-39 ATP mol per glucose mol that eukaryotes get. When it came down, it must have been the goose that laid the golden eggs.

* I wonder if chemolithotrophs aren't the real rulers of the universe in terms of sheer abundance in the universe. I bet they are.

Actually it depends. There are two competing theories regarding the origin of life. What I have mentioned falls under the autotrophic origin of life, which makes a lot of intuitive sense.

However, there is also the heterotrophic theory, which argues that prebiotic activities can result in organic compounds such as simple amino acids could have been consumed by early cell-like organisms. This theory has been buoyed by the discovery of new biosynthetic pathways that might have existed in primordial times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

However, there is also the heterotrophic theory, which argues that prebiotic activities can result in organic compounds such as simple amino acids could have been consumed by early cell-like organisms. This theory has been buoyed by the discovery of new biosynthetic pathways that might have existed in primordial times.

I was absolutely unaware of this. Thank you.

Is this compatible, incompatible, or completely independent (maybe a previous eon) of the RNA-world hypothesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, joigus said:

I was absolutely unaware of this. Thank you.

Is this compatible, incompatible, or completely independent (maybe a previous eon) of the RNA-world hypothesis?

I'd say it is adjacent but looks at something else. The RNA world hypothesis (and its many problems) mostly concerns itself with the steps towards the current DNA-protein paradigm. There are relative few concerns about metabolism, as anything remotely complex likely would not have been present. Catalytic properties of RNA are very limited, and require fairly complex RNAs, so folks have looked at other potential precursors of metabolism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/6/2022 at 7:22 PM, Bufofrog said:

No, they really don't.

Be the fly (that ends up as lunch)!

On 3/6/2022 at 7:22 PM, Bufofrog said:

The venus fly trap is a plant and the mantis is an insect, so what are you talking about?

If a carnivorous plant could think, the orchid mantis would be its role model!

On 3/6/2022 at 7:54 PM, Sensei said:

"Research published in 2014 revealed that one Philippine Rafflesia species from the island of Luzon, R. lagascae (a synonym of R. manillana), may have lost the genome of its chloroplast and it is speculated that the loss happened due to the parasitic lifestyle of the plant.[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafflesia#Loss_of_the_chloroplast_genome

:)

https://www.google.com/search?q=plant+without+chloroplast

A fun fact I shall try my best to remember. A knot on my handkerchief!

The rafflesia, if you'll allow me to coin a word, is being "animalized". I recall reading that it smells like decomposing flesh!

23 hours ago, joigus said:

Don't bury mantises in pots

ūüėĀ

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

As to OP, plants and animals split over a billion years ago (and all extant animals are basically . And no, if something resembles something else (especially if it is mimicry) they do not suddenly become related. A hairy person is not closer related to a bear than a non-hairy person, for example.

Roger!

13 hours ago, joigus said:

I wonder if chemolithotrophs aren't the real rulers of the universe in terms of sheer abundance in the universe. I bet they are.

Lovely thought!

To All (if interested)

All this reminds me of Immanuel Kant's phenomenon-noumenon (appearance-reality) distinction. Nietzsche's¬† √ľbermensch would've seen right through the orchid mantis' ruse (superman/Clark Kent has X-ray vision, remember?).

It's said that God can read our minds; does God do this using superman-like X-ray vision or something of that sort?

Edited by Agent Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Posted (edited)

I was just wondering about the sequence of evolution in re plants & animals. Which came first, plants/animals? Did both arise simultaneously and evolve along different lines? Did plants evolve into animals or did animals evolve into plants? I find these queries very thought-provoking to say the least.

The standard response to questions about how such a complex organism such as the orchid mantis came to be is evolution. When more information is requested, the other stock answer is that the times involved are geological scale (hundreds of millions of years) and so, anything's possible! Orchid mantises?! Just routine, nothing to see here, move along, move along!

However, I find this quite inadequate, I suffer (dukkha). Let's get some evolutionary biologists and mathematicians together and bring some precision to the time scales required for creatures like the Orchid mantis to evolve. Hundreds of millions of years is utterly and hopelessly unscientific any which way you slice this cake!

What sayest thou, o scientist?! What sayest thou?

Edited by Agent Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agent Smith said:

I was just wondering about the sequence of evolution in re plants & animals. Which came first, plants/animals? Did both arise simultaneously and evolve along different lines? Did plants evolve into animals or did animals evolve into plants? I find these queries very thought-provoking to say the least.

The standard response to questions about how such a complex organism such as the orchid mantis came to be is evolution. When more information is requested, the other stock answer is that the times involved are geological scale (hundreds of millions of years) and so, anything's possible! Orchid mantises?! Just routine, nothing to see here, move along, move along!

However, I find this quite inadequate, I suffer (dukkha). Let's get some evolutionary biologists and mathematicians together and bring some precision to the time scales required for creatures like the Orchid mantis to evolve. Hundreds of millions of years is utterly and hopelessly unscientific any which way you slice this cake!

What sayest thou, o scientist?! What sayest thou?

Yes we all suffer, Ducky. I do most earnestly say unto thee: "Get thee gone, thou facetious timewaster".ūüėĀ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

I was just wondering about the sequence of evolution in re plants & animals. Which came first, plants/animals? Did both arise simultaneously and evolve along different lines? Did plants evolve into animals or did animals evolve into plants? I find these queries very thought-provoking to say the least.

The standard response to questions about how such a complex organism such as the orchid mantis came to be is evolution. When more information is requested, the other stock answer is that the times involved are geological scale (hundreds of millions of years) and so, anything's possible! Orchid mantises?! Just routine, nothing to see here, move along, move along!

However, I find this quite inadequate, I suffer (dukkha). Let's get some evolutionary biologists and mathematicians together and bring some precision to the time scales required for creatures like the Orchid mantis to evolve. Hundreds of millions of years is utterly and hopelessly unscientific any which way you slice this cake!

What sayest thou, o scientist?! What sayest thou?

What makes you think scientists are not already working on this ?

One thing is certain.

Nature is under no obligation to Man's artificial classification schemes into say plants and animals.
Hard reality is the other way round. It is up to us to observe and update accordingly.
Cyanobacteria were once classified as plants but apparently that is no longer the case (Charony ?).

What are plants? What are animals? What is the difference between them?

If you take an old fashioned view that plants generate oxygen (through photosynthesis) and animals breath it then plants must have come first since there was once pretyy well zero free oxygen in the Earth's atmousphere.

But see this

Quote

https://www.thoughtco.com/all-about-photosynthetic-organisms-4038227

Anoxygenic Photosynthetic Bacteria

Anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria are photoautotrophs (synthesize food using sunlight) that don't produce oxygen. Unlike cyanobacteria, plants, and algae, these bacteria don't use water as an electron donor in the electron transport chain during the production of ATP. Instead, they use hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or sulfur as electron donors. Anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria also differ from cyanobaceria in that they do not have chlorophyll to absorb light. They contain bacteriochlorophyll, which is capable of absorbing shorter wavelengths of light than chlorophyll. As such, bacteria with bacteriochlorophyll tend to be found in deep aquatic zones where shorter wavelengths of light are able to penetrate.

Examples of anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria include purple bacteria and green bacteria. Purple bacterial cells come in a variety of shapes (spherical, rod, spiral) and these cells may be motile or non-motile. Purple sulfur bacteria are commonly found in aquatic environments and sulfur springs where hydrogen sulfide is present and oxygen is absent. Purple non-sulfur bacteria utilize lower concentrations of sulfide than purple sulfur bacteria and deposit sulfur outside their cells instead of inside their cells. Green bacterial cells are typically spherical or rod-shaped and the cells are primarily non-motile. Green sulfur bacteria utilize sulfide or sulfur for photosynthesis and can not survive in the presence of oxygen. They deposit sulfur outside of their cells. Green bacteria thrive in sulfide-rich aquatic habitats and sometimes form greenish or brown blooms.

 

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

However, I find this quite inadequate, I suffer (dukkha). Let's get some evolutionary biologists and mathematicians together and bring some precision to the time scales required for creatures like the Orchid mantis to evolve.

The answer to a specific question like this may not be (and is probably not) available; you'd have to know the evolutionary ancestors to trace a lineage. Have they been preserved e.g. in the fossil record? If not, then your ability to find out has been decreased. That's why asking for details of the evolution of one particular species is often an exploration of a bad faith discussion.

The orchid mantis is an extant species, so it took less than ~4 billion years to evolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Cyanobacteria were once classified as plants but apparently that is no longer the case (Charony ?).

Yes, cyanobacteria are clearly bacteria and not plants. 

 

8 hours ago, Agent Smith said:

I was just wondering about the sequence of evolution in re plants & animals. Which came first, plants/animals? Did both arise simultaneously and evolve along different lines? Did plants evolve into animals or did animals evolve into plants? I find these queries very thought-provoking to say the least.

Plants and animals had a common ancestor roughly 1.5 billion years ago. Arthropods appeared about 500-600 million years ago, the order of Mantodea is about 145 million years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that agent smith has the mistaken idea that the orchid Mantis evolved in isolation from other animals. Carnivorous plants and mantises share a common ancestor to be sure but that ancestor was, in all probability, close to 2 billion years ago. Bacteria do not really follow the rules like most animals and plants, bacteria share DNA through gene transfer instead of sexual reproduction so a common ancestor in regards to bacteria is sort of a misrepresentation of the process. Gene transfer in bacteria can occur in wildly different microbes and the resulting pattern is far more like banyan tree than a standard evolutionary type tree with one trunk. (a banyan tree has multiple trunks)  Animals do not become plants nor do plants become animals, the split between the three kingdoms of life, plants, fungi, and animals occurred way before any recognizable macro creatures evolved.  Looking deeper into this i find the classification i am used to using is too simple to accurately describe the classification of life. 

Maybe this will clarify the situation. 

Sandwalk: The Web of Life

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

 

Quote

220px-Tree_of_Living_Organisms_2.png

Quote

Comparison of top level classification[edit]

Some authors have added non-cellular life to their classifications. This can create a "superdomain" called "Acytota", also called "Aphanobionta", of non-cellular life; with the other superdomain being "cytota" or cellular life.[54][55] The eocyte hypothesis proposes that the eukaryotes emerged from a phylum within the archaea called the Thermoproteota (formerly known as eocytes or Crenarchaeota).[56][57]

Taxonomical root node Two superdomains (controversial) Two empires Three domains Five Dominiums[58] Five kingdoms Six kingdoms Eocyte hypothesis
Biota / Vitae / Life Acytota / Aphanobionta - Non-cellular life     Virusobiota (Viruses, Viroids)      
Prionobiota (Prions)
Cytota
cellular life
Prokaryota / Procarya
(Monera)
Bacteria Bacteria Monera Eubacteria Bacteria
Archaea Archaea Archaebacteria Archaea including eukaryotes
Eukaryota / Eukarya Protista
Fungi
Plantae
Animalia

 

Doolittle_Web_of_Life.jpg.crdownload

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 3/7/2022 at 6:30 PM, joigus said:

The take-home lesson being: Don't bury mantises in pots.

ūüėĄ¬†I won't. Imagine the scandal it'll cause in botany! I'm stupid but I don't think I'm thaaat stupid!¬†

On 6/22/2022 at 1:03 AM, Moontanman said:

I get the feeling that agent smith has the mistaken idea that the orchid Mantis evolved in isolation from other animals. Carnivorous plants and mantises share a common ancestor to be sure but that ancestor was, in all probability, close to 2 billion years ago. Bacteria do not really follow the rules like most animals and plants, bacteria share DNA through gene transfer instead of sexual reproduction so a common ancestor in regards to bacteria is sort of a misrepresentation of the process. Gene transfer in bacteria can occur in wildly different microbes and the resulting pattern is far more like banyan tree than a standard evolutionary type tree with one trunk. (a banyan tree has multiple trunks)  Animals do not become plants nor do plants become animals, the split between the three kingdoms of life, plants, fungi, and animals occurred way before any recognizable macro creatures evolved.  Looking deeper into this i find the classification i am used to using is too simple to accurately describe the classification of life. 

Maybe this will clarify the situation. 

Sandwalk: The Web of Life

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

 

 

Doolittle_Web_of_Life.jpg.crdownload 45.96 kB · 2 downloads

What an information treasure chest! Danke!

It seems mimicry is a two-way street. Vide 

Quote
Quote

 

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

If mimicry blurs the species boundaries, what the hell is this octopus? Is it a poisonous lionfish, a sea snake, or a gravel sea bed? 

 

It is a cephalopod, an octopus, it is not any of the things it mimics. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimic_octopus

Quote

The mimic octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus) is a species of octopus from the Indo-Pacific region. Like other octopuses, it uses its chromatophores to disguise itself with its background. However, it is noteworthy for being able to impersonate a wide variety of other marine animals.[2] Although many animals mimic either their environment or other animals to avoid predation, the mimic octopus and its close relative the wunderpus are the only ones known to actively imitate a number of animals in order to elude predators.[3]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.