Mind-blowing Experiment Evolved Multicellular Life In Just 600 days
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2023
- Get a Wonderful Person Tee: teespring.com/stores/whatdamath
More cool designs are on Amazon: amzn.to/3wDGy2i
Alternatively, PayPal donations can be sent here: paypal.me/whatdamath
Hello and welcome! My name is Anton and in this video, we will talk about incredible new experiment that shows how multicellular life may have evolved
Links:
www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
www.nature.com/articles/natur...
www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073...
ratclifflab.biosci.gatech.edu...
Fermi paradox series: • Fermi Paradox Series
Similar discovery: • Simple Bacteria Can Fo...
#life #evolution #fermiparadox
Support this channel on Patreon to help me make this a full time job:
/ whatdamath
Bitcoin/Ethereum to spare? Donate them here to help this channel grow!
bc1qnkl3nk0zt7w0xzrgur9pnkcduj7a3xxllcn7d4
or ETH: 0x60f088B10b03115405d313f964BeA93eF0Bd3DbF
Space Engine is available for free here: spaceengine.org
Enjoy and please subscribe.
Twitter: / whatdamath
Facebook: / whatdamath
Twitch: / whatdamath
The hardware used to record these videos:
New Camera: amzn.to/34DUUlv
CPU: amzn.to/2LZFQCJ
Video Card: amzn.to/2M1W26C
Motherboard: amzn.to/2JYGiQQ
RAM: amzn.to/2Mwy2t4
PSU: amzn.to/2LZcrIH
Case: amzn.to/2MwJZz4
Microphone: amzn.to/2t5jTv0
Mixer: amzn.to/2JOL0oF
Recording and Editing: amzn.to/2LX6uvU
Some of the above are affiliate links, meaning I would get a (very small) percentage of the price paid.
Thank you to all Patreon supporters of this channel
Special thanks also goes to all the wonderful supporters of the channel through TH-cam Memberships
Images/Videos:
Bozdag et al., Nature, 2023
John Alan Elson CC BY-SA 4.0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast#/...
B. Domangue CC BY-SA 4.0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_m...
HelenGinger CC BY-SA 3.0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_m...
Licenses used:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
![ไม่ต้องมีที่ที่ให้ฉันอยู่ แต่ขอแค่มีฉันอยู่ก็พอ (Spaceless) - getsunova [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4N8idbxZ-7M/mqdefault.jpg)
Such behavior is quite common in Fungi, but the fascinating part is that through these conditions, the scientists basically “unlocked” hidden functionality that we normally never see in yeast. They made it behave like other fungi
The real question is, how can we use this to make better beer?
I was thinking that, too. They didn't really unlock multicellular evolution in a microbe, but rather unlocked a once-dormant functionality of yeast's ancestors.
That came to my mind as well. Fungi are a pretty advanced life form and it's quite possible that simple(r) yeast evolved from a more complex multicellular fungal parent population and have simply retained "fossil" genetic code that could be brought back into functionality when the need arose.
As such, it may not be any sort of test of how multicellularity evolved in the first place - or when: for example, it's not clear (at least to someone like me with no genetics background) whether multicellularity evolved only once (and complex, macroscopic plants, animals and fungi all descended from a common multicellular ancestor) or whether it evolved multiple times in the course of life on earth.
@@spiderplant I agree
@@kevinroberts781 I'm glad someone's asking the right questions.
I remember a study, over 10 years ago. They had single cell organisms in a petri dish, happily munching and dividing. The scientists introduced a predator cell, and after many generations, the original cells began clumping into multi-cellular form, able to fight off the predator cells. The new multi-cell life eventually settled on 8-cell clusters, which was big enough to defend itself, but small enough to still have all cells able to feed at the same time.
Then the scientists removed the predators cells.
The surviving single cell organisms, and the new 8-cell clusters, continued to multiply as different species.
So you say scientist intentionally went out of there way to do this but somehow life evolved off random happenstance without God in the real world right? Just delusional thinking
i think that theres a difference between multiple cell colonies and multicellular organisms, mate
@@LordJesusDiedforUs By 'God', do you mean Yahweh'?
@@LordJesusDiedforUs I don’t understand why theists reject the theory of Evolution beyond it being used by some to reject/ deny the existence of God. I guess I don’t understand those using it to reject/ deny God either though. Both are wrong. God may have created the process of Evolution as a tool to generate life in all it’s variations somewhat similar to the way that video game developers use procedural programming and procedural generation. Science can be thought of as the method by which we learn more about how God went about creation in more detail.
@@LordJesusDiedforUs I feel the need to tell people that the bible was made like 2000 years ago and likely made to teach early humans stuff. If I told a human from the year 200AD that there are tiny things that live so small and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, on top of getting myself killed by the locals, they wouldn't understand. But I do see your point, and I don't know what types of cells were in said experiment so not like I could do the research.
The lack of oxygen being a catalyst for cell evolution actually makes sense. We know that Earth has gone through a few oxygen-deprived cycles in the past; if those timelines match up with explosions in the fossil records, I think it would lend serious credence to these experimental results.
I agree this theory is fascinating because it could answer one of the biggest mysteries of how life made the jump from dominantly anaerobic to dominantly aerobic when it overcame the poisonous oxygen environment in The Great Oxidation Extinction Event during the Paleoproterozoic era 2.4B years ago, which killed >80% of anaerobic life when the Earth's atmosphere and ocean first experienced a rise in the amount of oxygen. Scientists have attributed The Oxidation Event to the evolution of multicellular organisms going back to a paper published in 2013, but this new research suggests a mechanism for _how_ that evolution took place (i.e. that limited oxygen was a forcing function), and gives more weight than ever to the theory that deprivation of oxygen may be a *necessary* catalyst for multicellular life!
It kind of had to have an oxygen free environment for the earliest sequence of evolution as O2 doesnt tend to last long without getting latched onto carbon (etc). O2 on earth was probably freed up by life. (As a useful side effect O2 is pretty much the strongest signal for life when looking out there in space for life. If you find free Oxygen theres a good chance you've hit the jackpot)
Makes even more sense when you realize oxygen was the cause of one of the biggest extinctions(maybe the biggest but don’t feel like fact checking)
@@Grunttamer To be fair, no ones entirely sure if it was an extinction. It's kinda hard to tell if it was as a whole considering all that was around was microscopic bacteria and single celled organisms. But there was definitely a dramatic oxygen change in the Siderian/Rhyacian. Then right after that ended, the Huronian Glaciation occured and kind of sent things even more down hill, but life persisted.
Ait so technically if you could accelerate the evolution speed you could eventually design and create a new species of animal or "resurrect" extinct ones. Or make a man eating squid cat.
this is kind of a dubious experiment; yeast is after all member of the fungi kingdom, and fungi can be multicellular. Maybe yeast has multicellular ancestors, or even a multicellular form that can be adaptively triggered.
"or even a multicellular form that can be adaptively triggered."
this is probably the case. many species thought to be solely single celled yeasts have recently been shown to form into mycelium in the right conditions.
Of course, there's no proof here. But it's an interesting investigation, and suggests an avenue for further research!
Which I'm guessing was both considered in advance and in the peer-review process
I agree. Sometimes the right stressors will simply cause dormant genes to start up again. Other times, a gene deactivated by a mutation will mutate back into a working gene for some lucky organism who then has an advantage that gets selected for.
@@krinniv7898 that's all fine but it's not quite "evolving multicellularity"
Last time I was this early I was still a single-celled organism
You're progressing. It seems you've grown eyes and a typing appendage.😂
Last time anything of mine was called single-celled I had just taken my pants off.
Hello wonderful former fertilized egg.
Sooo 600 days ago?
@@BronzeDragon133 no that's a single inch organism😂💪🍆🎉
TY Anton for being as informatime behind a microscope as you are behind a telescope.
He has everything under the lens 😂
Anton simply keeps an eye on science, everywhere!
informative ? as above, so below ?
Yeast is pretty adaptable, so I'm not surprised that it could clump together. But it's ability to specialize individual cells is pretty amazing. And I don't think this has any impact on the Fermi paradox unless they can prove that this is a caused by a mutation. It's more likely to be a product of altered gene expression. If this is a characteristic of yeast that is normally repressed, then it doesn't seem to have much to say about how likely it was to have evolved in the first place.
It has to be a mutation because even if it is altered genre expression to an extent, that expression is changed by other genes. Or in other words, if the genetic code was the same there would be no difference from future generations to past ones.
Yep! Lot of people mistake epigenetic changes for actual genetic mutations. It is so bad that it genuinely makes the literature around the entire concept questionable.
I think this filter in the Fermi Paradox can be answered by the fact multicellularity has evolved multiple times on Earth. At least 25 as a matter of fact. Out of these, six have developed complex multicellularity, which means they can specialise cells for different purposes. This has happened once with animals, once with fungi, and four times with Diaphoretickes, which includes brown algae, red algae, green algae, and plants.
It was obviously caused by a mutation - but anyway, yeast probably has DNA that it inherited from multicellular ancestors, so it would be easy to 'readapt' to multicellularity compared to other life forms.
@@G3Kappa That isn't how epigenetics works. It isn't a sudden all or nothing except in extremely rare cases.
This reminds me of Kleiber's Law-a creature's basal metabolic rate scales at roughly (3/4) power of its mass. This is one of the chief explanations for deep sea gigantism. It really isn't hard to create a circumstance in which multicellular life provides a distinct benefit.
Interesting.
So you're saying that creatures in the deep sea tend to grow larger for the body heat born of higher metabolism in order to survive the frigid temperatures down below?
@@salaciousBastard not quite, metabolic efficiency increases by the 4/3rds power with size (hence why a mouses heart has to beat 500x a minute to survive, whereas an elephants only has to beat 25x a minute), that is to say larger animals need proportionally less food and oxygen to survive. In the deep ocean, food is much more scarce, so there is a distinct evolutionary advantage to using the available resources more efficiently. Also, larger animals are more easily forage for widely scattered resources, and are more resistant to predation. And since surface area scales by the 2/3rds power to volume, larger animals lose less heat to the environment. Add all those things together (and possibly the fact that oxygen saturation increases with greater depth and lower temperature) and you get significant selective pressures favoring larger animals.
@salaciousBastard Actually, the 3/4 power-- which is a rough estimate--appears to be an artifact of circulatory systems. Bodies do tend to lose heat, and other resources, via their surface, not their volume; so larger creatures have a distinct advantage in resource-scarce environments like the deep sea. If it was a power greater than one, then the multicellular advantage would disappear.
@@micmacha I flipped it from metabolic rate (3/4) to metabolic efficiently (4/3) to try to clarify
An entire planet, even an entire regional ecosystem would not require oxygen deprivation either. Say an underground lava tube system or cave system whose oxygen became limited due to collapse, or water, air or growth medium became mildly toxic etc. What a fantastic study! Thanks Anton as always! 🦋✨
It seems more like a colony of cells, nothing that we generally consider "multicellular". It's certainly not a new life form.
When Anton says the word "hypothesis", my brain makes happy chemicals.
haha I just posted a similar comment regarding everytime he says "A Lot Of"
@@atlasfeynman1039 He also says "unusual" quite a lot.
Best... content...on... TH-cam 😄As always, bro, you do a great job and I'm always gonna be here to support it. Gettin' my wonderful person hoodie next month 😁Thank you for your hard work!
This gives an entire new meaning to "yeast infection". Great video by the way.
Hence the health advice: "get some fresh air"
imagine, "super yeast infection "
Underrated command, but true medical implications indeed! Thanks for sharing, I will try to remember
I had a grade 10 teacher who brilliantly had the class each build their own glass encased environment to mimic the beginning of life with proteins and rocks and then he electrified them, each one. I'd love to say we discovered how life began, of course I'd be lying. What I discovered was how to think and hope and believe and love Science. We were working on the greatest experiments of all time and we were 15, that was one of the greatest class lessons of my entire life. Thank you Mr. Campbell of Overlea SS in Toronto back in the late 70's early 80's!!!
I wish I had had your teacher. Lovely story Thank you.
Geez, you do that in half the US states and they burn you at the stake for making magic and hatin' Jesus.
I also had a Mr.Campbell, for grades 3 and 4. He was also a great teacher that made learning very fun, especially the sciences.
So the experiment failed utterly, but you love the soyance. Looks like you missed the point of the experiment, which was that life doesn't arise from the primordial soup.
You do realise that your comment could mean he electrified the students. Obviously not what you meant but I found it sort of amusing.
It was a nice surprise to see my footage in this video.
Thank you, Anton. I’ve heard of this in passing, in broad generalities, but this is the first video or article I’ve found with any useful detail. You do good work. 👍
Be interesting to see what happens if they slowly over time reintroduce oxygen
Mhm
It will probably develop lungs, invent tools, start farming humans for food, builds spaceships and eventually go to Mars 🤷
Very interesting actually. Taking into account that "involution" is a bogus concept, since evolution is a one way street, it could go in a completely unexpected direction.
@@sylvann7501 I'm thinking along the lines of small oxygen increases every generation, something to that effect.
ngl I want to grow it in a semi chocolate milk substrate and see what happens
Yes I caught this video when it first came on. It's the little things that make my day better
My theory is that some early bacteria saw an episode of Voltron and decided it looked super awesome.
Thank you for not saying Power Rangers 🙄🤦♂️
Hugely exciting. The comparison between collaborative colonies, multiplying successfully in stable conditions, might show us how codependent single cell life forms eventually become symbiotic and amalgamate into multicellular forms as we observe them in adversity. I think it's important to distinguish between a colony which is made up of single cell organisms of one type and codependent communities of different organisms.
I have to say thank you and your team for all the awesome videos . In a world of lies and deception it is a great honor to have folks like you working hard and sharing this intriguing content . Anton is Mr. Reliable !👍
Multicellular life needed oxygen to be possible but it is true that it started at a time when oxygen (provided by cyanobacteria) was scarce and possibly only local (around cyanobacteria colonies). So maybe the experiment has woken up some mechanisms from that era hidden in the genome of the organisms.
That or just the mechanics of just being in a harsher environments are the very specific set of conditions that kickstarts these types of necessary adaptions. (removed from hidden, pre-existing genomes)
The 'sorting hat of the environment' if you will.
fantastic video anton this is unbelievably interesting
Anton, your channel is one of the very best on YT. You never fail to amaze.
This has been done before, but this is the fastest I think it's ever been shown to happen in the lab. Plus, it's much larger and more impressive this time, too. Quite impressive!
It literally says that word for word in the video
@@Totalinternalreflection Yes, it does, and I for one, appreciate Mary Ann repeating with clarity that which was declared in the video. That allowed my imperfect brain to reflect on exactly what she stated without taking the time to watch the video again. Thank you for your comment as it reminded a second time how much I got out of this video by Anton. Have a wonderful... whatever time of day it is that you possibly get to read this comment.
@@Totalinternalreflection is it? I understood it completely another way round. It's the slowest (it took almost 2 years vs 2 months from previous experiments) and it's the first experiment that showed a more impressive result.
Thank you Anton so much for your videos!!!
Why
Thanks Anton, super interesting stuff that I hadn't heard about!
Key question is how much change in DNA/genes occurred. There is a chance that yeast devolved from a multicellular organism, perhaps because in a less protected but oxygen rich environment, staying single was sn evolutionary advantage (i.e. more rapid replication), over being multicellular....
That isn't a chance, it is of common theory of evolution that yeasts are secondary single cellular organisms
Evolution is a one way road, there's no such thing as a "devolution" in biology.
@@KnightspaceORG all known changes in are devolutionary . It's because of breaking genes in DNA . Dog will never come back to wolf form nor polar bear to brown. They devolved
@@KolasName Proof will be in studying the new yeast cell's genome. 600 days could be thousands of generations, but I suspect multicellular specialization would entail a lot of additions to the genome, and I am skeptical that amount of genetic evolution can happen that fast, especially with asexual reproduction. I am not an expert by any measure, but Anton mentioned that for single cell organisms, yeasts are relatively recent. My impression of recent genetic research is that most species have a LOT of DNA that is no longer used. Evolution at its core is based on genetic changes that increase the chance of successful reproduction given the current environment, to include predation and infection. There isn't anything in evolution that mandates greater organism complexity over time. See reply from @PeloquinDavid
@@KnightspaceORG sorry, poor choice of word - evolution does not require that all evolutionary events require greater organism complexity. It could be that current yeasts evolved out of a multicellular organism that in a resource rich environment found that they did not need cellular specialization to reproduce, and in fact reproduced more rapidly without bothering with specialization, and then became the dominant population, but when challenged by resource depletion, some yeast retained enough multi-cellular genetics that it would begin to be expressed. Many multicellular species have genes that are either expressed at birth and after a period of time they are no longer expressed, or have genes that start out as suppressed, but become expressed later in life. Yeast may be one of them? Key will be studying the genetic changes between the source cells, and the ones that are now specialized.
Single cell amoeba "hold my beer" !! 😆
Evolution rules :-)
Oh i can already hear the apologists cry 😂😂
Just waiting to hear James Tour.
A very good episode!
Thanks Anton.
Always fascinating videos Anton. The wonders of the microscopic world as well as the galactic world are all amazing.
Stress in the environment forces cooperation. I like the idea. Makes sense. Life does not evolve unless there is a reason to change.
Hmm, “life does not evolve unless there is a need to change“. If there ever was a need to change it is now, don’t see much happening 😢
@@nicodesmidt4034 , and the species that do not evolve and adapt will go extinct. And this is what we are seeing today. A rapid increase in species becoming extinct.
@@nicodesmidt4034 There are a lot of changes happening right around us from plants, insects, and birds in new territory to blooming seasons happening earlier. we do not live long enough to see evolutionary jumps but there are science papers citing incremental stage change.
would love a video on kefir and the unique microorganism colony used to make it
This is the most underrated youtube channel on the whole inter-webs. Thanks for all your hard work.
Great work - as usual !
Great video, I actually studied the first experiment myself, good to see more discoveries on that subject. I would warn agaisnt using stock footage on your explanations. Some of them are not directly related to the subject and could make things a bit confusing.
Avoid stock footage and images period.
I was thinking the same thing. However finding footage to use that shows the exact phenomena he's talking about and also have the rights to use that video in his own TH-cam uploads is going to be very difficult and very time consuming to produce. He would have to make a couple videos per year instead of a couple of videos per week.
He has a million subs: who are you?
@@sr4087 Who cares about appeals to popularity?
It seems likelier that the yeast, at least some of the cells, already had genes capable to handle this environment either from an ancestor a long time ago or from some other organism. It is well established that single cell life can incorporate DNA/RNA from other species.
Yeast were once multicellular (as are many unicellular fungi), so it is very likely that it awoke some old genes to allow them to do this. starting this from scratch though is a different issue...
Very cool topic. Thanks Anton.
Great video! Fascinating information with so many applications😊
Please this for a next topic for Anton: lack of oxygen seems the key too in the Prof. Thomas Seyfried videos: cancer as a mitrochondrial metabolic disease. Why we are so often suffer from uncontrolled cell growing? Seams to me that both topics are strong related.
Agreed.
That's how deadpool gained his powers. He was put in a very limited oxygen environment. Lol
Would love a continueation of this experiment where they add a light source and the closer you are to it the more oxygen/nutrients you get... i wonder if some ultra simple eyes and movement could evolve
You look tierd Anton. Hope all is well. Thank you for the excellent videos as always!
But the real question is: what kind of beer will this multicellular yeast make?
Good question. Brewers yeast is made in similar way. Takes some grain add water and sugar and leave it open to the atmosphere. Yeast floating in the atmosphere will get in the water and start fermentation. After a few days throw out half, fill up with grain, sugar and water and leave it. Repeat every day. After a while you’ll find a bubbling mess. This mess is natural yeast from the air that has been selectively bred to metabolised sugar and grain into alcohol. These guys were selecting the yeast that fell to the bottom but for beer you want to select for the best alcohol converters. Who knows? You might get something drinkable…
The miracle of life is how we (eukaryotes) gained mitochondria. That seems almost more unlikely than the evolution of DNA based life. Once this happened multicellularity evolved independently at least 25 times in eukaryotes but the merger of two types of cells has only occurred once. Once our slimey ancestors gained a bacterial friend as a partner as a power source life in all it’s forms took off.
We may find life on other planets but it is likely only to be slime..
I also wonder what kind of bread this would make. And if this could become the next kerif grain
Weak beer. Strong beer need MAXIMUM YEAST SA:VOL Ratio.
Yeast used to only grow on walls of containers until they domesticated them to live in suspension
Black and tan in one bottle
I'm pretty sure I did this using Wyeast 1728 a few years ago. After a few iterations of reclaiming yeast or pitching new wort on old yeast cake I would start to get large (size of the head of a ballpoint pen) rigid clumps of cells that resisted shearing or crushing. I always just took this as an indication that I was selecting for something other than flavor profile so I would just terminate the line and buy new stock for my next batch.
*WOW - THAT WAS INTERESTING* as others have said - THANK YOU - for bringing this to our attention.
The world is lucky to have you. You're a wonderful person!!!
I always thought the generally popular hypothesis was that larger (multicellular life) was harder to _eat_ by other single celled life, so if you had a single celled predator that was about as large as you could get with single cells, multicellular would be the way to go.
Yeah, there's an experiment that showed cells grouping up to defend from predator cells. Life isn't so simple as to have only one reason for natural selection taking the paths it did.
The binding together stops the individual cells spreading out, reducing potential food and making predation more of an issue. If there is no issue with food or predators sticking together can be fine as long as everyone gets fed.
Fascinating, thank you Anton
Stunning experiment. By getting into larger structure, there is created a local difference between internal cells and surface cells. That this then drives so fast to specialization of activation is both intuitive and stunning.
It still blows my mind to think what was once lifeless matter, no different to any other matter, evolved over billions of years to become us.
And cats. Don't forget the cats.
Cuz that's not what happened....it's just what they claim.
@@RAndrewKReed Erm you might be late to the news bud but we are literally made out of elements in the Periodic Table.
@@justaway6901 the buttplug you're wearing is made of elements too, is it also gonna just come to life? You can hope I guess.
@R. Andrew K. Reed So what do you think happened then?
Whoa. Mind blowing stuff dude. You rock much love.
That’s kinda homo
So cool, thanks for sharing!
This just gave me some insane ideas.
Could it be possible that yeast has always had the ability to create colonies, and it's just preferred to be dormant?
That could mean that older life on earth might have taken a lot longer anyway regardless of how fast yeast can adapt.
It clumps to make the most of resources, but the specialization and "breathing" is pure selection and adaptation
@@bben31 Right, but I mean, maybe the ability to specialize is a dormant trait? Maybe an ancestor of yeast had created specialized organs in the past, which made it easier for it to adapt this time.
Not saying that's what's happening, just wondering if they've ruled that out.
@@reinux I did some research on it and it turns out that yes, yeast are descendants of multicellular fungi, as are a lot of fungi. So it was most likely a dormant trait or combination of hidden genes that made it easier to go multicellular.
@@bben31 Ahh cool, thanks for that! TIL
As always, a pleasure to watch you
Don't forget the evolution of the prokaryotic (without a nuclei) to eukaryotic (with nuclei) cells and large structure development.
Clever scientists. That experiment would never have occurred to me. Thanks, Anton.
Give yourself some credit. It would have occurred to you if you studied the evolution of yeast for the past 40 years. Lol
Well it occurred to me, but no one was listening!
There might be another explanation (?): Could it be, that the yeast "remembers" old genes it developed quite some time ago and 'normally' doesn't use?
It would be convincing if we can achieve similar results with more 'primitive' cells; ...
Seems like any environment factor that favoured multicellular forms would do. Really fascinating Anton, thanks for this!
Nice video broham. Well done.
Interesting paper. My understanding is that the conventional wisdom is that increased O2 levels facilitated the evolution of multicellular life with higher metabolism.
interesting to see evidence that multicellular organisms might come directly from colonial organisms with biological castes, into eusociality
Always great stuff
Thanks for the science videos my dude.
Everyday science takes another step towards realizing the reality: life is a natural part of Universe. (Universe x Time = Life).
Super Exciting! This step allows other science to study the DNA/RNA function at possibly a very close point to how it all started to program... (it should be part of the kernel programming of compiling code... for an analogy to computing). This will allow us to discover evolution, but also how/why our DNA does what it does in the order it unfolds it's programming... including "junk" proteins on the chain...
This is an amazing step for us as humans.. we should rejoice!!!! Our future offspring will benefit greatly. 😀
Thanks for fascinating new information which further demonstrates the probability of natural selection and development of complex life.
In software there are numerous examples of comlex emergent phenomenon. The main example is Conway's 'life' but there are many more examples. A similar program called tierra (i think that's right) mimics cells using numerical rules functioning as a computer program that could copy itself in a simulated memory bank. Organisms began to evolve during the very first test run of the program without alterations.
Yeast has always been fascinating to me. If you make beer in a transparent container you will see them make large chunks of colonies and swim around the liquid like multicelular creatures. If you add sugar to warm water and then add yeast, it will move to where the sugar is (at the bottom) in few minutes. That suggests that they cooperate by making limb-like structures for synchronized motion.
Or that gravity pulls things down 😊
@@MadScientist267 unless they cooperate with physical contact the mass of cells is pretty useless for gravity to do it's thing though.
Just speculating
@@badoem5353 The "mass is irrelevant" in that *density* decides what they do in water (after any surface tension effects are not in play).
@@MadScientist267 that's kinda what I said, osmoses and diffusion are the language of equilibrium in there.
Anton Petrov, Thanks for finding and sharing things and looking at some of the larger questions. The word is "apoptosis" for "programmed cell death" In humans this happens to remove cells that are near failing, without bursting and hurting those nearby.
The big thing you sort of missed, is that there are many questions that can only be answered by looking at things over long time periods. And doing the hard work.
I get bothered by groups like Google and the GPTs who only try to answer questions they can answer in two seconds. Their focus is trivia questions, not deep ones. If the GPTs would spend months, years, decades on problems, they could probably get useful answers, but they just like to "chat", rather than "study", "work", "research", "collaborate", "contribute to the greater good".
Humans are going through this same process of more complex organizations. It is not coincidental that organization and organism share the same root. There are tens of thousands of global issues like "evolution" or "black holes" or "climate change" or "shared knowledge for all" on the Internet. And they bubble up from ad hoc organizations serving their own needs and usually falling back into chaos. For the last 25 years of the Internet Foundation, I try to monitor and understand why human organizations fail to mature, why all commercial firms reach fairly small (10s to 1000s of $ Billions) then stagnate and quit evolving.
I think you will find that inorganic (non CHNOS) life can also exist, and it is only because it is different and operates on million year scales that we cannot see and understand it.
Take a look at the DNA, RNA, protein, genome, ome and chemical databases on the Internet. Each group, each website or web network is eclectic and making up its own rules. So when the different efforts try to combine at global scale, the pieces won't fit without a lot of effort. I try to find these earl and give them policies and ways of organizing that will allow the many separate efforts to work at global (and heliospheric scale).
So look at volcanic vents, times before oxygen was readily available, in places where their is a lot of stirring and pressure. and the efficient organizational methods will evolve. Then they need to last long enough at global scale to reproduce and effect others.
It is just barely possible there are other kinds of life besides DNA life on Earth. Someone would need to know what to look for and how. Life on Mars? We are too prideful if we think it could only happen with our flavor of CHNOS life. Those chemical reactions, just look at the periodic table, there is nothing special about life from CHNOS, except those are abundant and there was plenty of time for self-replication to evolve.
The question to ask is how the pattern is stored and why some things reproduce with exactly the same copies in every generation. There are many more variations in humans than our simple "all humans are identical".
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Yeah, I don't know the merit of it, but I have heard about silicon-based life potentially being possible. Though it seems less likely as the abundance of elements tends to decrease the higher the atomic number. Carbon is just such an amazing element that it makes sense most life would probably be based on it.
Thank you Richard
Thank you for the great videos.
During the Mesoproterozoic (aka the Boring Billion) from 1.8 to 0.8 Billion years ago, this was a time when oxygen levels were very low consistently for a long time in the oceans. It likely prevented proliferation and diversification of life but, at the same time - as experiments like this show - contributed to the development of the first multicellular life! How cool!
This is yeast flocculation. Every homebrewer has performed this experiment, whether they know it or not.
That clearly isn't the case or there would be no study. Yeast clumping together generally & creating permanent living structures with specialization & a unique genome are not the same thing
This is accounted for in the paper; if you search for "floc" in its text you'll find that they determine this to be distinct from flocculation.
I'd be more impressed by developing a single cell life from a chemical stew, but we take what we can get cause that's life.
We've made synthetic life in the form of single cells which then developed the ability to reproduce on its own
Why would developing a single cell life from a chemical stew impress you?
@@paulthompson9668 Its the transition from chemistry to biology, showing the possible path that the origin of life itself took. Its like the first animal that strung notes together into an interesting song, when everything before it had just played the same note over and over.
@@ericthecyclist Wouldn't you be more impressed by developing a single cell life in conditions similar to those on Earth 4 billion years ago?
@@paulthompson9668 That is the point. Ultimately, if we can't do it via chemical processes with anything we posses, it seems improbable to have happened the way science claims. Although to be fair, science doesn't know anything about abiogenesis other than it being the leading hypothesis. Unfortunately, you can't disprove it and so far it hasn't worked. Science doesn't believe in God, but they do magic, when it is convenient. God by any other name...
Great, interesting video,thanks 😊😊
Genuine wholesome person. Fantastic 😊
Interesting that oxygen deprivation could be one of the things making the jump. I am trying to think how that affected earth. Since the environment didn't have much oxygen until the great oxygenation event could it have been the only catalyst for prompting multicellular evolution? Were there multi called organisms prior to the great oxygenation event?
As the bio system became increasingly open, guess the yeast was better placed to work independent of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It's not hard to imagine the mechanisms behind cancer being those behind the 1st multicellular organisms multiplying out of control, leading ultimately to the evolution of animal life. As these blobs of cells grew larger & larger, the 'cancer mechanism' would kick in, causing cells to mutate, leading to specializations. These specializations were then selected for, evolutionarily-speaking, & then co-opted by the larger organism to serve a specific function...
That is a great hypothesis. So much research to do !!!
If you consider it, it's a shock cancer doesn't happen more often. Think about it--every cell in your body is the last in a line of cells that NEVER STOPPED DIVIDING.
We all seem to have cancer cells so what causes the mutations,
If LUCA is our great great grandfather ,yeast is our grandfather
@@benhudson4014 That's a complex issue; radiation, mutagens, and simple read/write errors (you can look up a ton more about those). But mostly your body takes one look, says nope, and kills them off.
@@BronzeDragon133 Actually a very, very profound thought !!
Certainly more lucid and true than what is said in mega-buildings filled with the hard of thinking.
The bridges between physics, chemistry, and biology are fascinating
Interesting, Anton!
As an Atheist I've had Creationists ask me how I could believe that single cells eventually lead to people.
I now feel incredibly vindicated.
As someone who knows about theistic evolution, Adam exclusionary etc, IDK if another instance of this kind of false dichotomy vindicates me
Pro tip: when they ask questions like that they don't really want an honest answer. Best to ignore them. Impossible to educate or debate.
They only have one argument-
'nuh uh!'
@@revimfadli4666 wtf is theistic evolution?
@@drsatan9617 When two gods love each other very much they can kiss and have a baby god who is different from his parents.
I can see a science fiction story now. Scientists intend to create single celled life. After weekend, they come back and find a herd of elephants in (what's left of) the lab.
"That went better than expected!"
That's a Farside cartoon.
@@onedaya_martian1238 Also kinda reminds me of a hilarious movie called "Evolution" with David Duchovny ^_^
For my Master's degree, I have done research on the species composition and sustainability of biofilms forming on surfaces of wastewater pipes at table olive and olive oil factories. We have found that synergistic roles develop between various bacteria and yeasts within the biofilm, where you have more resistant aerobic species on top and facultative anaerobes at the bottom. This ultimately protects the biofilms against the various caustic washes of olives (de-bittering process) and salts. Another student focused on developing a bio-reactor for this biofilm, because it was found to break down complex phenolic compounds and reducing the toxicity of the waste water.
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
That's amazing. A process that we previously assumed to take millions of years was sped up to such a degree
It wasn't. Yeast evolved from other multicellular organisms and lost those features, which scientists just selectively bred back into activation
@@spiderplant Well if it lost it and it was brought back it has still went through a massive change
@@tomf0olery Yes, but it didn't evolve it anew, just like if you go cleaning your closet and find an old childhood toy. You didn't just buy/make a new one, you uncovered the one that was sitting in your closet the whole time hidden and unused.
@@spiderplant My previous comment still stands
And after billions of year they develop technology that allows them to make videos of slapping , farts and cats
I'd call the cat videos, at least, a major success. So do the cats.
and slapping-farts.
Wow!!! Fermi Paradox people will love this.
The hasty jump from differentiated behaviour modalities to "assuming roles" nearly broke my neck.
Likely what was accomplished was discovering an inherent trait yeast has. How often has yeast been deprived of oxygen in nature over the eons. My guess, a lot.
If, as I believe, intelligent life exist in the universe, it still seems very unlikely that any sort of meaningful communication between different instances of that intelligence could ever take place... because of the distances combined with the maximum speed of exchanging information.
And the other variable being the time of the different civilizations existences.
We might all miss each other by millions or billions of years.
We can’t even communicate properly with intelligent species on earth (octopuses, dolphins) let alone find a good strategy to have humanity survive. Tells you a lot about our evolution
Plus, you know, the fact that humans are idiots.
A rational perspective sadly.
@@nicodesmidt4034 is our survival threatened?
it makes sence if you weight in the resource scarcity. single cells can do all the metabolic processes on their own, they don't need a large amount of resources to keep alive, but I'll guess it will not be as efficient as an specialized cell in a multicellular organism. so as a trade off, you sacrifice individual survivability for teamwork where the end sum of resources divided by all cells is greater than what a single cell could get
Really cool and makes sense too as hardship usually tends to be a catalyst for growth and innovation.
The video title should have been "It's official, God is Dead"
Unfortunately we are probably far from proving Abiogenesis. But this research will help bring us closer.
I like to see what James Tour will think of the research.
@@adrianthom2073 Who would take such a statement seriously? Adrian Thom did.
@@JessTarn , how is one to know if your being sarcastic or not?
Certain religious types are about to be very upset.
They'll just hand wave it as, "YOU DIDN"T CREATE LIFE!" or ignore it, as always. No worries, they're just not that smart.
@@BronzeDragon133 perhaps but for others their god of the gaps just got even smaller.
@@ngcastronerd4791 They'll always have abiogenesis! Until they don't. Which I suspect will be within the next twenty years, when it becomes, "You can't be a hundred percent sure that's what Earth's early atmosphere/ocean was like!"
Yeah, whatever, fundie.
How close scientists are to make first proto cell in lab ? If apologetic says there was not that kind of environment on earth you may say we have we don't need any soul or intelligence creator to make life
They're always in the bliss of their own denial.
i reckon looking at colonial organisms is a good start aswell like siphonophores. Yeast occurs naturally on many flowers, plants actually culture yeast. Collect elderflower in the spring/summer, you can make homemade champaign out of it, the yeast on the flowers is what does the fermenting!
_"...They would not get bigger than a few micrometers. And more importantly, they didn't actually have a very strong connection, and would be very easy to break."_
Hypothesis: the cells were weakly bound, so if a cluster got bigger than a few micrometers, it fell apart into a couple of smaller clusters. (Remember the Cube-Square law.) It's not that the clusters stopped growing, it's that they couldn't maintain large size. The tendency of the cells in the middle to starve to death might make this effect stronger.
This is testable. If they stop growing at a few hundred cells, then at equilibrium there should be very few smaller clusters.
EXACT. Even single cells have behavior set by some kind of initial parameters
The theists are gonna so triggered
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🥰🤣
No kidding. This vid has more theist ranks in the comments than I've seen anywhere lately.