Which species's evolution is most successful?

[invert_nexus]

Ants also can't spread themselves out across the universe. Well, neither can we, yet. But we're working on it.

...can't deliberatly cause global warming...

I've seen speculation on how much of the global warming is actually caused by cows farting in the meadow. And I believe that even ants fart. Deliberate? No. But would you call what we do deliberate?



There is speculation about whether bacteria can in fact colonize space within fragments of rock blasted from the surface in meteor hits. This would seem to be successful strategy.

On the whole, I have to say bacteria are the most successful. What percent of the biomass of the earth are they? It would take an extreme extinction event indeed to wipe out the bacteria. The question is, if every other lifeform on the earth were destroyed, could the bacteria have another explosion of forms to mirror the precambrian explosion?

 

[Avatar]

but that does not mean it separate organism.

at least a seperate lifeform

 

[Avatar]

could the bacteria have another explosion of forms to mirror the precambrian explosion?

since we don't know what caused those explosions (there were many) then I say it's entirely probable

 

[paulsamuel]

paulsamuel,

the mitochondria have evolves such a symbiosis with is host that might as well consider them the same organism. Yes the mitochondria does still have its own genome (in humans a tiny ~16570bp) but that does not mean it separate organism.

I'll agree with that, but the bacterial origins of mitochondria are still apparent, and they were once organisms, so one could argue that, as a life history strategy, mitochondria are pretty successful.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Avatar,

lifeform no, for it to be a lifeform it would have to live out side of the cell in some way, having active metabolism. If not then Chloroplast, plasmids and viruses could be consider a lifeforms.

 

[Avatar]

actually I cosnider virus a lifeform, but ok, probably I'm wrong. But I don't see an "organism" with it's own unique DNA living inside my cells as myself

 

[Semon]

When I rethink, Humans may have the most potential to live forever and spread to the whole universe by science power even the earth is destroyed.
Humans may destroy themselves by science power although.

 

[Semon]

For many scientists, a species' success is measured by sheer numbers. In that case, the most successful species known to man is a type of bacterium known as S-A-R-11, or SAR-11 for short. Scientists estimate that there are two-hundred and forty times a billion billion billion SAR11 cells floating around in the oceans. Now that makes six-billion humans sound like a mere handful.
SAR11 bacteria are known for their ability to transform one substance into another, which is why they are such an important part of the Earth's chemical cycles. Although scientists are still uncertain about SAR11's specific role, it appears to produce carbon dioxide using the oxygen and carbon from organic matter that's derived from photosynthesis. Scientists speculate that SAR11 plays a major role in the way the ocean's surface acts as a giant carbon pump that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The catch is that SAR11 is what is known as an uncultured organism, which means that scientists haven't been able to cultivate it under laboratory conditions. This requires scientists to develop pretty indirect genetic methods just to be able to study SAR11 cultures. Now that this technology is available, scientists are sequencing the SAR11 genome in order to figure out exactly what kinds of carbon it uses, and why it's so successful at ocean living.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Plasmid that live inside bacteria and plants are not organism, chloroplast are not organism, nor are mitochondria, to be a organism it has to live on it own, none of these can. A Virus is not alive in that it is only a packet of information that is replicated by cells, if you want to call a biological virus alive then you should also call a computer virus alive. Mitochondria should not be consider most successful “species” in that it is not a species, its not even a organism anymore, and it not even alive on its own.

 

[Avatar]

So what exactly is mitochondria, if it's not a simbiotic organism? Where does stand it's distinctive DNA? I'm again confused.
And I have another question. Let's say NASA detects a suspended virus frozen in Mars ice. Would they announce that they have found life on Mars?
thanx in advance, it's very interesting.

 

[paulsamuel]

Plasmid that live inside bacteria and plants are not organism, chloroplast are not organism, nor are mitochondria,

that's an opinion. it can be argued that chloroplasts and mitochondria are endo symbionts. It is generally agreed among biologists that these plastids arose from symbiotic relationships.

to be a organism it has to live on it own, none of these can.

This is simply not true. There are many instances of obligate symbiotic relationships (i.e. the symbiont cannot live on its own without the host) and these are true organisms.

A Virus is not alive in that it is only a packet of information that is replicated by cells, if you want to call a biological virus alive then you should also call a computer virus alive.

This does not follow. I agree, though am surprised, that there is a debate in the biological world whether a virus is considered life. However, to state that if a virus is alive, then we'd have to call a computer virus alive, is pure nonsense. Computer viruses were created by man, real viruses are a natural phenomenon. Computer viruses have no more life than a computer. A more apt analogy might be, if we call a virus alive, then we'd have to call a prion alive. That's acceptable.

Mitochondria should not be consider most successful “species” in that it is not a species, its not even a organism anymore, and it not even alive on its own.

However, the selective processes that molded the life history characteristic endosymbiosis, was extremely successful for the plastids.

 

[paulsamuel]

So what exactly is mitochondria, if it's not a simbiotic organism? Where does stand it's distinctive DNA? I'm again confused.
And I have another question. Let's say NASA detects a suspended virus frozen in Mars ice. Would they announce that they have found life on Mars?
thanx in advance, it's very interesting.

mitochondria are organelles that arose (evolved) from endosymbionts, and that is why they have retained their genomes. Their original genomes were probably much larger (the size of bacterial genomes) but have been pared down to metabolic genes and the protein manufacturing genes.

If NASA found a virus on Mars, they would almost certainly declare they had found life. However, it's very unlikely that an Earth organism would be found on another planet.

 

[Avatar]

so, did endosymbionts live inside our bodies since the begining of our species or did they "invade" our bodies at some point of a time. and if invaded (or not), did they from the very start live inside our cells? (I know that maybe these questions can't be answered, but...)

maybe it's a Mars organism. there is a good chance we got here from a comet/meteorite, and Earth and Mars have been exchanging meteorites (as I heard they (nasa) have found or suspect a earth meteorite on mars), and it's known that bacteria can whitstand space travels inside a rock, so it's not entirely unlikely
maybe we all are martians...

 

[paulsamuel]

so, did endosymbionts live inside our bodies since the begining of our species or did they "invade" our bodies at some point of a time. and if invaded (or not), did they from the very start live inside our cells? (I know that maybe these questions can't be answered, but...)

The first branching in the evolution of life occured when eukaryotes (all organisms which contain a membrane bound nucleous and plastids like mitochondria and chloroplasts) split from prokaryotes, probably around almost a billion years ago. That's how long ago.

maybe it's a Mars organism. there is a good chance we got here from a comet/meteorite, and Earth and Mars have been exchanging meteorites (as I heard they (nasa) have found or suspect a earth meteorite on mars), and it's known that bacteria can whitstand space travels inside a rock, so it's not entirely unlikely
maybe we all are martians...

It's possible, but Actually, not a good chance. earth life probably arose here on earth and did not come from space. hopefully we'll find out soon.

 

[Avatar]

even if it arose on Earth it had a chace to blast itself to Mars
I'm not saying that it happened I'm just open to such probability
so I won't be too surprised if we find microbiological life on mars that has the same dna makings than that of Earth's.
--
anyways back to the topic I think that we must not only take in mind how widespread the species is, but also it's survival capabilites under hazardous conditions. If life on Earth or Mars indeed came from a metiorite or a comet/s then that played a key role in further evolution of life as a whole (or if we sink into details- the evolution of the lifeform that "came" here.
--
I have always wanted to do an experiment. Set bacteria loose on Mars and see what develops (given I can live a few hundred thousand years), but unfortunately NASA is all about not contanimating (sp) the planet because it's afraid it could destroy unique martian life.
I suspect and am sure that after we establish a permenat colony on Mars (and it will happen sooner or later) evolution on the red planet will have a second chance.

 

[Nlarkin]

All species alive today are successful in evolutionary terms. If they weren't they would have become extinct.

the Bactirium you refer to woulod nbot be the correct answer to a very poorly written quesition. "Evolution" I have to agree that they are the most successful at reproduction and the ability to cope with changing atmosphere but they have not evolved there for they do can not have the most successful evolution.

 

[ElectricFetus]

paulsamuel,

Generally in symbiosis the each individual organism can be grown separately by some means, the mitochondria and chloroplast are far beyond symbiosis most of their genomes have migrated to the host genome, they are nearly completely reliant on host proteins and enzymes. And most of all I don’t see them classifying mitochondria as separate species. because its not a species it can not qualify under this question.

it does not matter if something is created by man or not to be alive. It won't be long now tell organisms are created whose whole genomes will be synthetic, will they not be "alive"? Not to mention that they have already created viruses synthetically. A compute virus can evolve autonomously and proliferate, it has all the properties of a virus except for physical form.

If you want to call a prion alive then you might as well call a crystal alive.

 

[invert_nexus]

the Bactirium... have not evolved there for they do can not have the most successful evolution.

Actually, it can be said that the bacteria did evolve form earlier, more primitive lifeforms. Bacteria just didn't appear from nowhere. They evolved. There is research being done on RNA-based lifeforms which vanished after bacteria evolved. Bacteria out-competed their earlier competitors and since that time have not been knocked down.

If the criteria for success was most evolutionary change, then you'd get rid of the cockroach, shark, crocodile, etc... And quite possibly would knock humans out of the running as well, since evolution seems to have slowed somewhat in our case (this of course is highly speculative.) The question in this case would be, which animal has undergone the most recent evolutionary change? Then this creature would be the most evolved and therefore successful?

 

[paulsamuel]

paulsamuel,

Generally in symbiosis the each individual organism can be grown separately by some means

not always, lichens for example, some symbionts in the gut of termites. there's a fairly long list.

the mitochondria and chloroplast are far beyond symbiosis most of their genomes have migrated to the host genome,

that's not true. their genomes are reduced relative to their ancestors, however, it has never been shown that their genomes 'moved' into the host genome. the examples of mitochondrial genomic introgression into the host are all extant genes, and mostly pseudogenes.

they are nearly completely reliant on host proteins and enzymes.

as we are completely reliant on their proteins and enzymes (which are the same thing BTW).

And most of all I don’t see them classifying mitochondria as separate species. because its not a species it can not qualify under this question.

I agree they probably won't ever give it species status, but they were once species, and I see no reason why we can't include probably the most successful species ever to have lived (or will ever live) on the face of the earth.

it does not matter if something is created by man or not to be alive. It won't be long now tell organisms are created whose whole genomes will be synthetic, will they not be "alive"? Not to mention that they have already created viruses synthetically. A compute virus can evolve autonomously and proliferate, it has all the properties of a virus except for physical form.

just because humans may one day create life, does not mean that something they make is alive. it's absurd to say that computer viruses are alive if some biologists think that real viruses are alive.

who created viruses synthetically? do you have a reference for that?

an inanimate object can have some properties of life and still not be life. The properties 'evolve autonomously and proliferate' may be necessary for life, but they are not sufficient. Why do you think that computer viruses have all the physical properties of a virus except for physical form?

If you want to call a prion alive then you might as well call a crystal alive.

That's not true. crystals and prions are quite different.

 

[Semon]

Another thought.

The bacteria may dominant right now. However, Will bacteria in their current form be flourishing on this planet and elsewhere in the universe in a million years? In a billion years? Will they be the dominant form of life in the solar system, in the galaxy, or in the universe?

Evolution is fundamentally progressive if there are sequences of potential improvements in living processes that evolution can exploit. The fact that some living processes have not yet exploited the sequences does not mean that the sequences do not exist. It may be that potentials for improvement exist, but the evolutionary mechanisms that have operated until now have not been creative enough to find ways for bacteria to exploit the potentials. This possibility cannot be dismissed without proving that there are no such sequences of potential improvements.

We have seen what sort of living processes are likely to achieve future evolutionary success, and they are not bacteria. Each individual bacterium is a managed cooperative organisation of molecular processes. But individuals of most species of bacteria do not cooperate with each other, or with other organisms. They are not members of large-scale, managed cooperative organisations. The inability of most bacteria to adapt collectively means that they cannot respond effectively to wider-scale events, and cannot have large-scale impacts on their environment. They cannot team up to manage matter, energy, or other living processes on the scale of a centimetre, let alone on the scale of a city, country, nation, planet, solar system or galaxy.

Mitochondria contribute cooperatively to the effective functioning of our cells, and through this to the success of ourselves and our social organisations. They are critically important members of the teams of cells and of the teams of teams of cells that have built the pyramids, invented agriculture, dammed rivers, built cities, and developed genetic engineering and other technologies.