3 ms·
I think the problem here is that we don't have the original prokaryote genome. Today's prokaryotes have gone through billions of years of evolution and might we
by zeteo 14y ago
I think the problem here is that we don't have the original prokaryote genome. Today's prokaryotes have gone through billions of years of evolution and might well have longer genomes than their distant ancestors. So the leftmost points on the graph might have shifted up over time (albeit more slowly than the rightmost).
- efnx 14y agoAlso - it depends on what you define life as, which as far as I know is an ongoing argument. What about RNA+protein life before DNA?
- mbq 14y agoWay worse. Evolution is not about gaining complexity but about fitting to (current state of) the environment; in this manner, Procaryota are actually the most "evolved" form of life since they can rapidly adapt thanks to their short life cycle and uncluttered physiology. And this can be easily seen in genetic diversity -- the whole spread of animals or plants is almost negligible in comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_1500px_coloured.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_1500px_colour...). Another good example is the fact that practically all procaryotic germs are highly specific, so must have evolved after their host species did.
- writtles 14y ago> Evolution is not about gaining complexity but about fitting to (current state of) the environment I'm glad you cleared that up. Here I was thinking evolution and its "goal" is still a mystery to science.