Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Little Algae That Could

Posted by Hemos on from the evolution-devolution dept.

A reader writes "This NewsFactor Network article says scientists have discovered a genetic "missing link" that helps to explain how primordial pond scum evolved into the land plants that now cover the Earth. Their conclusion: A type of green algae is the closest living relative of the first land plants."

6 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Leaves a lot to be desired... by BlueOtto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure seems like there would be many more 'missing links' between algae and a land plant.

    1. Re:Leaves a lot to be desired... by Angry+Toad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well... the news article misses the beat on a few things, including which journal it was published in (Science, not Nature). The term "missing link" is often bandied about in the news whenever the topic turns to ancestral organisms. That wasn't really what the paper was about. The real issue was that this algae appears to be the closest living relative of the land plants. For that reason, any characteristics it has in common with the land plants are most likely ones which were present in the common ancestor of all land plants. Being able to place the ancestor of the land plants between two "frames" this way (common characters of land plants AND characters of Charales algae) gives us a window onto what kind of organism the land plants are derived from. Here's a tiny quote from the original paper:

      Identification of the Charales as the sister taxon to land plants with the Coleochaetales as sister to the Charales/land plant clade suggests that the common ancestor of land plants was a branched, filamentous organism with a haplontic life cycle and oogamous reproduction... Although it is tempting to envision the origin of land plants as having been from amorphous pond scum, these data indicate that the common ancestor of land plants and their closest algal relatives was a relatively complex organism.
  2. How does this work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I read that we lose 6 species each day from the face of the earth. You all already know where I am going with this. Yes, this is flamebait. But if you have an earnest argument, please reply. We lose 6 a day, we don't see new species being created, we see statistical laws in action everywhere we look, with increaing entropy being of great interest. What makes evolution feasible?

  3. Re:an amusing comment by coltrane99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You admit 'adaptation based on traits that make the species more hearty, that is scientific and observable.' That's excellent. However, there's no bright line between this kind of change and 'origin of species'. Occam's razor demands that one not create one. It's 'the only game in town' in the sense that it is the only explanation that fits the facts and does not introduce invisible superheros into the equation. If we are allowed to introduce superheros, we can come up with an infinity of possible explanations.

  4. remarkable by jopet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    for me as an european what is remarkable here is how many people feel the need to come up with creationism in this forum. what kind of religious fundamentalism is this? or is it just another incarnation of the kind of thought that makes people believe in UFOs or witchcraft? or is this just some kind of geek humor I dont get?

  5. de-evolution by peter303 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (Not a band name!) Gould claims in several books that evolution goes in both directions at the same time. Some organizms are getting more complex, while others are getting less complex. For example viruses and parasites may be remnants of more complicated organisms. We tend to notice only the more complex organisms in life's diversity.

    The implcation here is that this pond scum could have been a more developed organization that gave up complexity over the eons.