wp-plugin-hostgator
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source:https:\/\/www.quantamagazine.org\/fossilized-molecules-reveal-a-lost-world-of-ancient-life-20231023\/#comments<\/a><\/br> At first, the stem group may have had an advantage. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere were significantly lower than they are today. Because building protosterols requires less oxygen and energy than modern sterols require, stem-group eukaryotes were likely more successful and abundant.<\/p>\n Their influence declined when the world hit a critical transition known as the Tonian Period. Between 1 billion and 720 million years ago, oxygen, nutrients and other cellular raw materials increased in the oceans. Fossils of modern eukaryotes, like algae and fungi, start to appear in the rock record, and modern steroids start to outnumber protosteroids in fossilized biomarkers \u2014 evidence that suggests crown-group eukaryotes had begun to thrive, increase in number and diversify.<\/p>\n Why would sterols become more complicated over time? The authors suggested that the more complex sterols bestowed some evolutionary advantage on their owners \u2014 perhaps related to dynamics in the creatures\u2019 cell membranes. Whatever the reason, the sterol shift was evolutionarily significant. The makeup of modern sterols likely gave crown-group eukaryotes a boost over the stem group. Eventually, \u201cthis lost world of ancient eukaryotes was replaced by the modern eukaryotes,\u201d Brocks said.<\/p>\n The researchers\u2019 evolutionary sterol story is compelling, but it\u2019s not rock solid.<\/p>\n \u201cI wouldn\u2019t be surprised\u201d if their interpretation is correct, Gold said. However, there is another possibility. Although scientists tend to associate sterols with eukaryotes, some bacteria can also make them. Could the molecular fossils in the study have been left by bacteria instead?<\/p>\n Gordon Love<\/a>, a geochemist at the University of California, Riverside, thinks the bacterial scenario makes more sense. \u201cThese protosteroids turn up in rocks of all ages,\u201d he said. \u201cThey don\u2019t just disappear, which means that something other than stem eukaryotes is capable of making those.\u201d He argued that bacteria, which dominated the sea at the time, could have easily produced protosteroids.<\/p>\n The authors can\u2019t rule out that possibility. In fact, they suspect that some of their fossil molecules were made by bacteria. But the possibility that their vast collection of fossilized protosteroids, stretching for hundreds of millions of years, was made entirely by bacteria seems unlikely, Brocks said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you look at the ecology of these bacteria today, and their abundance, there is just no reason to believe that they could become so abundant that they could have produced all these molecules,\u201d he said. In the modern world, bacteria produce protosterols only in niche environments such as hydrothermal springs or methane seeps.<\/p>\n Cohen, the Williams College paleontologist, agrees with Brocks. The interpretation that these molecules were made by eukaryotes \u201cis consistent with every other line of evidence,\u201d she said \u2014 from the fossil record to molecular clock analyses. \u201cI\u2019m not as worried\u201d about that possibility, she said.<\/p>\n Either interpretation presents more questions than answers. \u201cBoth stories would be absolutely crazy weird,\u201d Brocks said. They are \u201cdifferent views of our world,\u201d he added, and it would be nice to know which one is true.<\/p>\n Lacking a time machine, the researchers are searching for more evidence to improve their certainty one way or the other. But there are only so many ways to reconstruct or perceive ancient life \u2014 and even scientists\u2019 best guesses can never completely fill the gap. \u201cMost life didn\u2019t leave any traces on Earth,\u201d Nettersheim said. \u201cThe record that we see is limited. \u2026 For most of Earth\u2019s history, life might have looked very different.\u201d<\/p>\n Quanta is conducting a series of surveys to better serve our audience. Take our biology reader survey<\/a> and you will be entered to win free <\/em>Quanta merchandise.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/br><\/br><\/br><\/p>\n
\nFossilized Molecules Reveal a Lost World of Ancient Life<\/br>
\n2023-10-24 21:58:11<\/br><\/p>\nA Bacterial Wrinkle<\/strong><\/h2>\n