3 ms·
Seems like the real surprise here isn't the chemistry itself (which matches modern forms), it's that evidence for eukaryotic life from this era is scarce. Euka
by ajross 3y ago
Seems like the real surprise here isn't the chemistry itself (which matches modern forms), it's that evidence for eukaryotic life from this era is scarce. Eukaryotes apparently hid for a billion years in an ecosystem completely dominated by prokaryote life. Which I guess is surprising since in theory they're supposed to be more complex and adaptable.
- abecedarius 3y agoWhat are the leading theories about why? The lower level of free oxygen?
- fbdab103 3y agoMy naive thought - complexity kills all things. Eukaryotic cell is bigger, has more metabolic processes, can have specialized life cycle, etc. All of which means that it is slower growing and could be out-competed by the faster-growing, but less optimal organism. Natural selection only picks those who survived, not "the best".
- abecedarius 3y agoYes, that's roughly how I was thinking about more oxygen changing the game.
- asdff 3y agoThere were some moments in time that saw eukaryotes gain huge metabolic advantages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
- andrewflnr 3y agoI wonder if the "hiding" phase was pre-mitochondrial. We can get a long history of stem-eukaryotes (?), starting to build up these diagnostic chemicals, but they don't take over until mitochondria give them a bunch of energy.