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.
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"?
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.
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
>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
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
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?
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"?
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.
This annoyed me as well.
I finally unsubscribed this summer.
Yeah, beneath the planetary crust is asking a lot.
Probably didn't want to settle for less but you take what you can get . . .
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.
Discovery and detailed analysis of life on Europa in my lifetime would be amazing. Even better if we can get Attenborough there.
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
You might enjoy reading "What is Life" by Erwin Schrodinger (that physics guy)
[1] http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-what-is-...
The conundrum is how did local regions of low entropy that exhibit both metabolism and replication come into existence.
Without replication there is no evolution. Without metabolism, low entropy cannot be maintained and replication cannot function.
1) take a breath 2) the universe is big, really big...
paywall'd
https://archive.is/I23NT
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