Skip to comments.
The energy expansions of evolution
Nature ^
| April 28, 2017
| Olivia P. Judson
Posted on 05/20/2017 10:29:40 PM PDT by LibWhacker
AbstractAbstract
The history of the lifeEarth system can be divided into five energetic epochs, each featuring the evolution of life forms that can exploit a new source of energy. These sources are: geochemical energy, sunlight, oxygen, flesh and fire. The first two were present at the start, but oxygen, flesh and fire are all consequences of evolutionary events. Since no category of energy source has disappeared, this has, over time, resulted in an expanding realm of the sources of energy available to living organisms and a concomitant increase in the diversity and complexity of ecosystems. These energy expansions have also mediated the transformation of key aspects of the planetary environment, which have in turn mediated the future course of evolutionary change. Using energy as a lens thus illuminates patterns in the entwined histories of life and Earth, and may also provide a framework for considering the potential trajectories of lifeplanet systems elsewhere.
Free energy is a universal requirement for life. It drives mechanical motion and chemical reactionswhich in biology can change a cell or an organism1,2. Over the course of Earth history, the harnessing of free energy by organisms has had a dramatic impact on the planetary environment3,4,5,6,7. Yet the variety of free-energy sources available to living organisms has expanded over time. These expansions are consequences of events in the evolution of life, and they have mediated the transformation of the planet from an anoxic world that could support only microbial life, to one that boasts the rich geology and diversity of life present today. Here, I review these energy expansions, discuss how they map onto the biological and geological development of Earth, and consider what this could mean for the trajectories of lifeplanet systems elsewhere.
In the beginningIn the beginning
From the time Earth formed, around 4.56 billion years ago (Ga), two sources of energy were potentially available to living organisms: geochemical energy and sunlight. Sunlight is a consequence of the planet's position in the Solar System, whereas geochemical energy is an intrinsic property of the Earth. Geochemical energy arises when water reacts with basalts and other rocks8,9,10. These waterrock reactionswhich continue today11generate reduced compounds such as hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and methane8,9,10. Oxidation of these compounds releases energy, which organisms can capture and store in the form of chemical bonds. Although sources of geochemical energy can be at or near Earth's surface, they need not be: many are deep within the planet, out of reach of sunlight.
Assuming that life did not parachute in, fully formed, from elsewhere, a number of authors12,13,14,15 have argued that the transition from non-life to life took place in the context of geochemical energy, with the ability to harness sunlight evolving later (Fig. 1). Consistent with this, both phylogenetic16 and biochemical13,17 evidence suggest that the earliest life forms were chemoautotrophs, perhaps living by reacting hydrogen with carbon dioxide and giving off acetate, methane and water13,16. Mounting evidence18,19,20,21,22 suggests that the transition from non-life to life may have taken place before 3.7 Gaa time from which few rocks remain23.
Figure 1: Key events during the energy expansions of evolution.
(i) Life emerges; epoch of geochemistry begins. (ii) Anoxygenic photosynthesis: start of energy epoch 2, sunlight. (iii) Emergence of cyanobacteria. (iv) Great Oxidation Event: energy epoch 3, oxygen. (v) Probable eukaryotic fossils appear. (vi) Fossils of red algae appear. (vii) Start of energy epoch 4, flesh. (viii) Vascular plants colonize land; fire appears on Earth. Finally, the burning logs indicate the start of energy epoch 5, fire. The dates of (i)(iii) are highly uncertain. For (i) I have taken the earliest date for which there is evidence consistent with life20. For (ii) I have taken the earliest date for which there is evidence consistent with photosynthesis18,19,21. For (iii), I have marked the date currently supported by fossil evidence for the presence of cyanobacteria (see main text, Cyanobacteria and the oxygenation of the air). Tick marks represent intervals of 25 million years. Figure drawn by F. Zsolnai.
TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: energy; evolution; expansion; life
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
I particularly liked the little spiral timeline. It's packed with informative little gems: The width of each colored area (corresponding to one of the five sources of energy living things make use of), and consequently the utilization of that source, begins at a distinctive point in the past and the width/utilization gradually increases up to the present day. In other words, once a new energy source is discovered by life, old sources aren't abandoned as new ones are found, but all sources, including the new ones and the old ones, are used to a greater extent than ever. This is going to come as a surprise to the Left's snowflakes who expect once we perfect solar, say, we'll "switch" from fossil fuels. That's not how life (nature) works. I look forward to the day one of the flesh eaters discovers it likes little fleshy snowflakes!
To: LibWhacker
2
posted on
05/20/2017 10:49:51 PM PDT
by
sparklite2
(I'm less interested in the rights I have than the liberties I can take.)
To: LibWhacker
Social Darwinist neo paganism, eh? Interesting.
3
posted on
05/20/2017 11:08:49 PM PDT
by
ifinnegan
(Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
To: LibWhacker
4
posted on
05/20/2017 11:30:13 PM PDT
by
kvanbrunt2
(снова сделаем Ам)
To: LibWhacker
From the time Earth formed, around 4.56 billion years ago
wild ass guess.
5
posted on
05/20/2017 11:32:19 PM PDT
by
boycott
To: LibWhacker
Uh...pardon me energy epochist author person...what chemical mechanism was involved in harnessing the “new” energy sources? How did the organism prevent oxygen from oxidizing any living systems newly evolved chemistry or new membranes, enzyme systems.Fire,a fast oxidizer, usually disintegrates its substrate.Why would slow oxidation be a source of energy but not a source of disruption? Why do we take antioxidant compounds? Why do we use hydrogen peroxide to disinfect wounds?The uv light from sunlight can easily destroy microorganisms...it is used in sterilizing whole “clean” rooms on a commercial and medical basis...it is very useful as a destroyer of life...not a builder...heat also speeds up reactions and many of the reactions lead to disorder more often than order, on average...thats why we use autoclaves to “heat sterilize” different products.uh...pasteurization,cooking food,ring a bell?...pretty graphics though...
6
posted on
05/20/2017 11:55:25 PM PDT
by
Getready
(Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
To: Getready
He leaves out elan vitale.
7
posted on
05/21/2017 12:57:16 AM PDT
by
Louis Foxwell
(Progressivism is 2 year olds in a poop fight.)
To: Getready
Go to the link ("Nature" hyperlink, not the "this is an exceprt" hyperlink, which is broken) and read the article.
A mixture of pseudo intellectual posturing and showboating.
Using fire as an energy source is cooking (it is "predigestion" which delivers more energy than raw food, and widens the variety of foods eaten), with additional references made to (I'm not kidding!) manufacturing of tools, iron smelting, and the internal combustion engine.
I'm appalled at what passes for research anymore. And this is in Nature.
SJW converged.
8
posted on
05/21/2017 2:36:29 AM PDT
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: LibWhacker
Thanks, LibWhacker.
I read the entire essay at Nature.
The idea of understanding Evolution from an energy perspective is something I had never clearly thought about before.
To: grey_whiskers
I think you must have read past important parts of the author’s statements about fire.
Foremost, fire would not be possible on Earth without life, i.e. organic fuels and organic derived oxygen.
Additionally, fire changed the evolution of plant life on Earth, which is the primary energy source for almost all animal life.
Fire has also beneficially altered vast areas of soil, and it affects the mixture of gases in the oceans and the atmosphere.
Before 1800, malnutrition and hypothermia were the second and third leading causes of human death in all previous human history.
So, fire may not be epochal, but it is certainly significant in the history of human survival, and the migration of humans to almost every corner of the Earth.
To: zeestephen
Nor I, but as I read the brief opener in this thread, I couldn't shake the thought that evolutionists would like to call energy "life", but if they did, it would confuse the narrative of evolution.
11
posted on
05/21/2017 3:53:55 AM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true, I have no proof, but they're true.)
To: LibWhacker
Evolutionits believe that matter plus energy plus time equals Life. Life requires information which cannot be created using a random mixture of matter and energy over vast periods of time.
12
posted on
05/21/2017 4:36:36 AM PDT
by
killermosquito
(Buffalo, Detroit (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
To: killermosquito
Evolutionits = Evolutionists
13
posted on
05/21/2017 4:38:58 AM PDT
by
killermosquito
(Buffalo, Detroit (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
To: boycott
To: LibWhacker
Very interesting article.
Thank you for posting.
15
posted on
05/21/2017 5:10:37 AM PDT
by
misanthrope
(Liberalism; it is not unthinking ignorance, it is malignant evil.)
To: zeestephen
That's all irrelevant.
No living organism directly utilizes fire as a primary biological energy source.
Mankind uses fire as a tool.
The clickbait framing presented fire as a biological development.
16
posted on
05/21/2017 5:21:42 AM PDT
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: boycott; LibWhacker; raygunfan
from the article:
"From the time Earth formed, around 4.56 billion years ago..."boycott: "wild ass guess."
raygunfan: "EXACTLY"
No, not "exactly" and far from "wild ass guess".
In fact there are multiple data sources confirming such estimates, including this partial list of radio-metric materials:
![]()
Parent Isotope |
Stable Daughter Product |
Est. Half-Life |
Uranium-238 |
Lead-206 |
4.5 billion years |
Uranium-235 |
Lead-207 |
704 million years |
Thorium-232 |
Lead-208 |
14.0 billion years |
Rubidium-87 |
Strontium-87 |
48.8 billion years |
Potassium-40 |
Argon-40 |
1.25 billion years |
Samarium-147 |
Neodymium-143 |
106 billion years |
Rhenium-187 |
Osmium-187 |
41.6 billion years |
Dates from these methods are consistent with each other and with dating from other methods, such as comparing mass & luminosity of the Sun with other stars and measuring Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions in meteorites.
"Statistics for several meteorites that have undergone isochron dating are as follows":[36]
Item |
Meteorite |
Radiometric material |
Age of Earth |
1. |
St. Severin (ordinary chondrite) |
1. Pb-Pb isochron |
4.543 ± 0.019 billion years |
|
|
2. Sm-Nd isochron |
4.55 ± 0.33 billion years |
|
|
3. Rb-Sr isochron |
4.51 ± 0.15 billion years |
|
|
4. Re-Os isochron |
4.68 ± 0.15 billion years |
2. |
Juvinas (basaltic achondrite) |
1. Pb-Pb isochron |
4.556 ± 0.012 billion years |
|
|
2. Pb-Pb isochron |
4.540 ± 0.001 billion years |
|
|
3. Sm-Nd isochron |
4.56 ± 0.08 billion years |
|
|
4. Rb-Sr isochron |
4.50 ± 0.07 billion years |
3. |
Allende (carbonaceous chondrite) |
1. Pb-Pb isochron |
4.553 ± 0.004 billion years |
|
|
2. Ar-Ar age spectrum |
4.52 ± 0.02 billion years |
|
|
3. Ar-Ar age spectrum |
4.55 ± 0.03 billion years |
|
|
4. Ar-Ar age spectrum |
4.56 ± 0.05 billion years |
Of course, by its nature science is never 100% irrefutable, but when evidence piles up from many sources, all pointing to consistent conclusions... well, that's as good as science ever gets.
17
posted on
05/21/2017 7:31:21 AM PDT
by
BroJoeK
(a little historical perspective...)
To: BroJoeK
No, not “exactly” and far from “wild ass guess”.
So the science is settled? Sort of like global warming?
I know there was a man named Jesus that walked this earth about 2000 years ago and I believe in his death, burial, and resurrection. The age of the earth doesn’t really change that belief.
All that said, the age of the earth is still a wild ass guess. There are way too many potential variables to even guess.
18
posted on
05/21/2017 7:43:28 AM PDT
by
boycott
To: LibWhacker
have argued that the transition from non-life to life
Spontaneous generation has continually been proven wrong. Accepted scientific principle. Life begats life.
But, if you don’t like the results you rename it and call it something else:
In the years following Louis Pasteur’s experiment in 1862, the term “spontaneous generation” fell into increasing disfavor. Experimentalists used a variety of terms for the study of the origin of life from non-living materials. Heterogenesis was applied to once-living materials such as boiled broths, and Henry Charlton Bastian proposed the term archebiosis for life originating from inorganic materials. The two were lumped together as “spontaneous generation”, but disliking the term as sounding too random, Bastian proposed biogenesis. In an 1870 address titled, “Spontaneous Generation”, Thomas Henry Huxley defined biogenesis as life originating from other life and coined the negative of the term, abiogenesis, which was the term that became dominant.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
19
posted on
05/21/2017 8:03:08 AM PDT
by
PeterPrinciple
(Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
To: boycott
boycott:
"So the science is settled?
Sort of like global warming?" By definition, science is never "settled" and always subject to change whenever new data or better ideas require that.
But "global warming" is not even science, it's politics subject to the whims of voters, media masters and super-computer projections.
Nothing "settled" about it.
Age of the Earth calculations are a different matter entirely.
They are real science and confirmed repeatedly by multiple methodologies.
More importantly nothing scientific seriously falsifies such estimates.
Of course, if you wish to assume that all of science is built on false premises, well, that's your prerogative.
boycott: "I know there was a man named Jesus that walked this earth about 2000 years ago and I believe in his death, burial, and resurrection.
The age of the earth doesnt really change that belief."
Exactly!
No need for me to say more.
boycott: "All that said, the age of the earth is still a wild ass guess.
There are way too many potential variables to even guess."
Except that it's not and there aren't.
In fact, there are multiple -- dozens -- of scientific methodologies which confirm not only the Earth's age, but ages of various rocks & fossils and all are consistent.
Sure, scientists are human and make mistakes, sometimes, but there are no confirmed data points -- none, zero -- which seriously falsify the usual models.
Of course, if you reject science's premises, then it's conclusions necessarily make no sense.
But within it's own internal logic there really isn't that much doubt about long-standing scientific ideas.
20
posted on
05/21/2017 9:15:07 AM PDT
by
BroJoeK
(a little historical perspective...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson