New discovery makes us rewrite the theory of evolution.

Hi ATS

I just got acquainted with a new type of creature. Well... 3 actually.

There is just one little problem with it. We now need to rewrite, print and distribute the theory of evolution.

This new discovery messes up the chronological order we have and it is a multiple cell life form.
Huh...
Yeah... I know, so what. Well, it does not need oxygen to live... Ever !

Oxygen is supposed to have driven the evolution of complex life – but the discovery of animals that thrive without it tells a different story

Here is a quote from a quote from the article:

Living without breathing

Some fish, mussels and sediment-dwelling worms can live without oxygen for hours or even days. Instead of getting energy by "burning" food, the cells of these animals switch to ways of producing energy that do not require oxygen. Until earlier this year, no animals had been discovered that go their entire lives without oxygen (see main story) - it was thought to be impossible.

Oxygen is not only used for getting energy from food, it is also needed to make compounds like collagen, the "glue" that holds animals together. No oxygen, no collagen; no collagen, no animals, the thinking went. That must be wrong, although we have yet to work out how the newly discovered animals make compounds like collagen without oxygen.

So could there be planets out there with large animals that do not need oxygen? While burning food produces 10 times as much energy as other means like fermentation, in theory an animal might get around that if it could somehow get 10 times as much fuel. The trouble is, fermentation leaves far less energy for predators in ecosystems. With aerobic respiration, there can be five or six links in a food chain before the amount of energy falls below 1 per cent of that available initially. Without oxygen, this happens with just two links.

And with far less scope for predation, animals might not evolve as far or as fast; the need to find prey or dodge predators is thought to have driven the development of features like eyes and mouths and muscles.

They use Hydrogenosomes ( Wiki.) to produce hydrogen, instead of Mitochondria ( Wiki.) that produce oxygen.

The only set back is that oxygen is 10 times more effective producing energy.

The ability of ancestral mitochondria to make hydrogen, rather than use oxygen, was the basis of the primordial pact that gave rise to the eukaryotes, Martin and Müller argued. The bacteria produced hydrogen as waste, and the host cell used it to convert carbon dioxide into methane, gleaning a little energy from the process - just as many archaea, called methanogens, still do. The symbiosis began in an environment with little or no oxygen and only later, after the relationship was well established, did the host cell start exploiting the ability of the ancestral mitochondria to use oxygen.

This idea, known as the "hydrogen hypothesis", was proposed by Martin and Müller in 1998 (Nature, vol 392, p 37), but it has never gained widespread acceptance. It was not just up against the gut feeling of most researchers that the rise of the eukaryotes was related in some way to oxygen; on the face of it, what little evidence there was did not support it either.

Source.


The creatures are called Lorciferia.

Species name: Not yet assigned, but of the phylum Loricifera, genus Spinoloricus

Habitat: Deep sediments lacking oxygen in the L'Atalante basin of the Mediterranean Sea south of Greece – and who knows where else…

It looks like this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f4a9a45f53ce.jpg[/atsimg]
Oxygen is for losers (Image: Roberto Danovaro, Antonio Dell'Anno et al)

Source.

What do you think ?

It looks like this is some pretty groundbreaking discover and it opens up a lot of more room in the discussion on possible alien life forms.

It also looks as if nature always finds a way... I think that is beautiful.

~ Sinter.

wow, imagine the possiblities this universe hold for life of all kinds to live in. Just as fish live in water we live in air, who knows creatures may even live in space? Def opens up new and exciting ideas for scientist to base ideas around life on other planets.

Take a look here :-

scholar.google.com.au...

Lets not forget - planets consume carbon dioxide - they evolve as well.

scientists are stupid!
just because they have not found it yet.
it can Not exist.
in the last ten years they have gone far beyond the boundaries.
life living in extreme heat and cold.
and now no oxigen.
OMG we are not the center of the universe!!!

did you know the catholic church only aseptic that the earth was not flat.
in about 1953

so many people are blind in there beliefs.
they can not see the future and what IS possible.

reply to post by Aristophrenia


Thanks for the link.

If I'm not mistaken your link shows single cell organisms.

The Lorciferia from the OP is a multiple cell organism which is never been seen before according to the article.

With planets consuming carbon. Do you mean like trees and stuff, or the actual planet itself ?

Planets however do not fall under the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution only explains the development of life. Planets are not considered living organisms.

reply to post by buddha


1953 ...

That's just shocking considering ancient Greek and Egyptian civilizations were already aware of the fact the earth is not flat but a sphere.

So now every planet in our solar system can hold life.

Every planet in the hole entire universe can hold life, we are a spec of life on a tiny ball that holds life now we are small.

S+F OP

I think it was said best in Jurassic Park: Life finds a way. We (scientists) discover new things all the time and this is a great example. It definitely gives more hope for lifeforms completely different than us.

This mirrors what I keep saying about Science being a religion - how matters in science being taught as fact when there is no proof, is downright foolish;

Until earlier this year, no animals had been discovered that go their entire lives without oxygen (see main story) - it was thought to be impossible.

The arrogance of scientist is exactly the same as the arrogance of the Creationists the scientists love to fight against.

I believe the truth lies someplace in the middle of both schools of thought on the "life's origins" issue. Trouble is both sides are so stupidly close minded if GOD comes down tomorrow and hands them The Manual and Blueprints written in words a kindergartner could understand they would not recognize it.

There could be Aliens on (in) Jupiter who have evolved through processes that are alien to us. Physics itself as we understand it can be so different that alternate dimensions, time travel, faster than light travel for humans, ghosts, and yes, even God has a place to co-exist with science.

Forms of energy that smash the 2nd so called law of thermal dynamics to bits.
Creating matter out of thought. Moving objects with the mind. Anything becomes possible.

Simply because science cannot explain or prove something does not make the possibility of it any less real.

I'm sorry, but this thread is completely flawed.

Life without oxygen, or even light has been known about for sometime. Not only are there bacterial colonies living in toxic pools in places like Yellowstone (ancient strains from the days when the earth was still a lethal and hostile place) but also entire eco systems in the depths of the oceans surrounding Hydrothermal Vents (Black Smokers) where life is based on chemical synthesis.

These organisms are so well known that have an actual name, Anerobic Organisms. In many cases higher order organisms will live symbiotically with these bacteria and draw thier chemical needs from the 'waste' products that they generate.

You are correct about one thing though, through evolution, life will always find a way.

ETA...

The problem with science today is two fold

1) Money

Research requires increasingly large amounts of money. As such, the research that gets carried out is completely at the whim of those signing the checks. It doesn't matter how important something is, if scientists can't get funding they cannot research it.

2) Dogma/Vested Interests.

One of the best examples for this is the Sphinx...when geologists are shown pictures of just the stones they are all of the opinion that the wear is due to centuries of water erosion. When it is revealed that those stones are part of the Sphinx they suddenly retract their opinions and refuse to comment.

Science is not the problem, PEOPLE are the problem.

A general failing in humans is that we always think that our knowledge TODAY is complete and correct. Too many people base their careers on ideas developed in thier time, as new information comes out these ideas can change or be proven false.

NOBODY likes to admit they are wrong. It doesn't matter if it is a scientist, theologian or some random person on the street.

It used to be science versus the established dogma of religion, now it is science verses the established careers of well known scientists. Exactly like politics, anyone who goes against the grain is a target and a threat to what is the established status quo.

Ego is, was and always will be the downfall of our society.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by [davinci]]

reply to post by [davinci]


I was just going to post that but you saved me the trouble

i watched a documentary about it on discovery about a year ago

reply to post by [davinci]


a whole community and mini ecosystem based on sulfides & hydrogen-sulfide instead of oxygen or/and light


i just wonder if anyone had the mind to taste those shrimp that feed on the bacteria that thrive in the deep ocean thermal vents,,,
might be they are toxic

[edit on 12-8-2010 by St Udio]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Plants - sorry not planets.

The fact is that the discovery of any new feature of an animal in no way undermines evolution - it merely represents the diversity of evolved animals / plants.

Evolution is not a theory - it is not a hypothesis - it is a fact. It is how things evolve - to put it simply. This organism evolved to be this way.

The first life forms - no matter what they were - all consumed carbon. Simple fact of life / evolution.

reply to post by [davinci]


Hi.

I'm sorry it took a while to respond.

I was intrigued by your arguments and tried to an answer, for myself and maybe for you.

First of all, I want to make clear that this article does not say that life without the need for oxygen, does not exist. It does and you already know the name it has been labeled with. Anaerobic.

What they say is that this is the first complex and multicellular life ever found on earth, which is anaerobic.


What I found was this:

Life found around black smokers, does use oxygen. The one organism which does not, is a bacteria. Oxygen is actually lethal for it. All the animals that feed on or from it, absorb their oxygen dissolved.

Anaerobic lifeforms have never been found before which was was a multicellular complex organism.

NOBODY likes to admit they are wrong. It doesn't matter if it is a scientist, theologian or some random person on the street.

This one comment from you is just wrong. I do not mind to admit I'm wrong. I prefer to be right of course... Man learns because of the countless mistakes we make. When I'm wrong, I'm happy when I get corrected. It simply means I learned a new thing. Which is good...

Anyway...

Why do we need to breathe oxygen?

Basically, oxygen forms water when it comes in contact with hydrogen and water is the stuff we need to make the intake of energy more efficient. Without it there is simply not enough energy available to sustain complex organisms. Creatures that live around black smokers, still use oxygen to extract the energy needed from the anaerobic bacteria. The oxygen helps them to extract the energy they need, which will not be enough if it was not for the oxygen.

. At the base of their tubes, hydrothermal fluid is enriched in H2S and CO2, but is devoid of oxygen. The respiratory plume is extended into the ambient (2°C), oxygen-enriched bottom water. Riftia's unusual microhabitat is the interface between the hydrothermal fluids and the ambient bottom water where essential metabolites can be taken up by the plume and transported to internal bacteria for metabolism. The steep thermal and chemical gradients provide access to the reduced compounds needed to fuel growth and the oxygen needed to burn the fuel.

Vesicomyid clams living in hydrothermal vents have endosymbiont-containing gills. Vesicomyid blood transports oxygen bound to hemoglobin and contains an extracellular component with a high sulfide binding affinity (18). In this species, sulfide and oxygen acquisition are spatially separated. The foot of the clam is extended down into crevices that vent sulfide-rich water, enabling sulfide uptake and transport through the circulatory system to gills that are bathed in oxygen-rich seawater circulated from above.

Source.

You are correct about one thing though, through evolution, life will always find a way.

Of course I'm correct.
But... Life does not need evolution to find a way. Life changes and adapts and sometimes this will be beneficial. It could be beneficial to stay exactly the same...

reply to post by Aristophrenia


Hi

The article never claims to undermine evolution. It says that we have to change our understanding about it.

Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes.

The theory of evolution contains a lot of holes which we close with what we know. This way it is regularly evolving itself by implementing new knowledge. Like the discovery from the OP, which does not fit our previous understanding and therefore it needs to be changed.

You probably know this. I think there seems to be a misunderstanding.

Plants consume carbon monoxide by day and oxygen by night.

Cellular respiration (process that uses oxygen to break sugar into energy
for life functions) and photosynthesis (green plants converting sunlight
energy into sugars using water and carbon dioxide) are distinct and
separate processes. Animals only use cellular respiration. Plants do not
have muscles and the other functions necessary in animals functioning that
require a high levels of oxygen. Plants also CAN NOT take the energy
directly for their energy needs from photosynthesis. Photosynthesis
produces a far greater amount of oxygen and sugars, etc. then the small
amount the plant requires to produce its energy needs. OK - but only
during the day when the sun light is available! During the night, the
plant actually uses oxygen it has left over from the daylight
photosynthesis or takes the oxygen from the air surrounding the plant to
meet its energy needs. This is not nearly the amount of oxygen an animal
needs over the same period of time.

Source.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Hi.

I understand what you meant on the other thread now.

We are talking about evolution here and a change that isn't that significant IMO.
I even agree with you actually, I just don't really see why you seem to attack all of science for correcting a mistake isn't that a good thing ?

Hi

I'm sorry but are you not going to refute my arguments ?

Why reply on a thread if you're not going to debate about it... Come one ?

* BUMP *

What this tells me is that (simple) life may be even more common in the universe, but possibly harder to detect.

Maybe it was just an accident of fate that the dominant life on Earth evolved to require oxygen? Maybe if we ever meet aliens they will have a completely different biology to us?

Isn't science fun! We just never know what we're going to discover next

reply to post by Essan


Funny indeed. Like a poster before said.A new discovery can make our knowledge useless. Thankfully not this time, but I'm sure a day will come that will make us feel stupid, and we got it wrong all along.

By the way, is it me or have there been some very big discoveries taking place lately ?