←back to thread

67 points marban | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
r00fus ◴[] No.41873764[source]
There's a theory that life actually originated not directly through photosynthesis based life, but originally from a very constant source of energy - the earth's crust - Hyperthermophile archaea - using non-oxygen based metabolism which migrated to the surface where photosynthesis evolved and took over as the core energy source.

All laid out in Paul Davies' book - fascinating read: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Fifth-Miracle/Pau...

replies(4): >>41873845 #>>41874269 #>>41874837 #>>41876503 #
pineaux ◴[] No.41874269[source]
Actually this is not a theory. Photosynthesis came millions of years later than life. Plants are evolved from animals, not the other way around. Basic animals are less evolved than basic plants.
replies(1): >>41874581 #
HelloMcFly ◴[] No.41874581[source]
Plants and animals evolved from different lineages of eukaryotic organisms. They share a common ancestor, but plants did not evolve from animals. Plants evolved from green algae, while animals evolved from colonial protists.

I also take exception with the concept of "more" or "less" evolved. Do you mean "complexity"?

replies(1): >>41875203 #
1. WillPostForFood ◴[] No.41875203[source]
He is right though that, "Photosynthesis came millions of years later than life." And the parent post's claim, "There's a theory that life actually originated not directly through photosynthesis based life," misrepresents that it is a commonly held view that life originated not directly through photosynthesis based life. It is generally understood that life predates photosynthesis.
replies(1): >>41875640 #
2. Tagbert ◴[] No.41875640[source]
Yes, they are right that photosynthesis came later, but then veered way off track saying that plant evolved from animals.