Wikipedia

Common descent

(Redirected fromCommon ancestor)
For use of the term in linguistics and philology, seeComparative method,Historical linguistics,Proto-language,andTextual criticism.
"Common ancestor" redirects here. For use of the term in graph theory, seeLowest common ancestor.

Common descentis a concept inevolutionary biologyapplicable when one species is the ancestor of two or more species later in time. According to modern evolutionary biology, all living beings could be descendants of a unique ancestor commonly referred to as thelast universal common ancestor(LUCA) of alllifeonEarth.[1][2][3][4]

Common descent is an effect ofspeciation,in which multiple species derive from a single ancestral population. The more recent the ancestral population two species have in common, the more closely are they related. The most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms is the last universal ancestor,[3]which lived about3.9 billion years ago.[5][6]The two earliest pieces of evidence for life on Earth aregraphitefound to bebiogenicin 3.7 billion-year-oldmetasedimentary rocksdiscovered in westernGreenland[7]andmicrobial matfossilsfound in 3.48 billion-year-oldsandstonediscovered inWestern Australia.[8][9]All currently living organisms on Earth share a commongeneticheritage, though the suggestion of substantialhorizontal gene transferduring early evolution has led to questions about themonophyly(single ancestry) of life.[3]6,331 groups ofgenescommon to all living animals have been identified; these may have arisen from a singlecommon ancestorthat lived650 million years agoin thePrecambrian.[10][11]

Universal common descent through anevolutionaryprocess was first proposed by the BritishnaturalistCharles Darwinin the concluding sentence of his 1859 bookOn the Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.[12]

History

edit
See also:History of evolutionary thought

The idea that all living things (including things considered non-living by science) are related is a recurring theme in many indigenous worldviews across the world.[13]Later on, in the 1740s, the FrenchmathematicianPierre Louis Maupertuisarrived at the idea that all organisms had a common ancestor, and had diverged through random variation andnatural selection.[14][15]

In 1790, the philosopherImmanuel Kantwrote inKritik der Urteilskraft(Critique of Judgment) that the similarity[a]of animal forms implies a common original type, and thus a common parent.[16]

In 1794, Charles Darwin's grandfather,Erasmus Darwinasked:

[W]ould it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, whichthe great First Causeendued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?[17]

Charles Darwin's views about common descent, as expressed inOn the Origin of Species,were that it was probable that there was only one progenitor for all life forms:

Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.[18]

But he precedes that remark by, "Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide." And in the subsequent edition,[19]he asserts rather,

"We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of Distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent from a few created forms with subsequent modification".

Common descent was widely accepted amongst thescientific communityafter Darwin's publication.[20]In 1907,Vernon Kelloggcommented that "practically no naturalists of position and recognized attainment doubt the theory of descent."[21]

In 2008, biologistT. Ryan Gregorynoted that:

No reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin's time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.[22]

Evidence

edit
Further information:Evidence of common descent

Common biochemistry

edit

All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organization: genetic information encoded inDNA,transcribed intoRNA,through the effect ofprotein- and RNA-enzymes,then translated into proteins by (highly similar)ribosomes,withATP,NADPHand others as energy sources. Analysis of small sequence differences in widely shared substances such ascytochrome cfurther supports universal common descent.[23]Some 23 proteins are found in all organisms, serving asenzymescarrying out core functions like DNA replication. The fact that only one such set of enzymes exists is convincing evidence of a single ancestry.[3][24]6,331genescommon to all living animals have been identified; these may have arisen from a singlecommon ancestorthat lived650 million years agoin thePrecambrian.[10][11]

Common genetic code

edit
Further information:Genetic code
Amino acids nonpolar polar basic acidic Stop codon
Standard genetic code
1st
base 		2nd base
T C A G
T TTT Phenyl-
alanine 		TCT Serine TAT Tyrosine TGT Cysteine
TTC TCC TAC TGC
TTA Leucine TCA TAA Stop TGA Stop
TTG TCG TAG Stop TGG Tryptophan
C CTT CCT Proline CAT Histidine CGT Arginine
CTC CCC CAC CGC
CTA CCA CAA Glutamine CGA
CTG CCG CAG CGG
A ATT Isoleucine ACT Threonine AAT Asparagine AGT Serine
ATC ACC AAC AGC
ATA ACA AAA Lysine AGA Arginine
ATG Methionine ACG AAG AGG
G GTT Valine GCT Alanine GAT Aspartic
acid 		GGT Glycine
GTC GCC GAC GGC
GTA GCA GAA Glutamic
acid 		GGA
GTG GCG GAG GGG

Thegenetic code(the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated intoamino acids,and hence proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, frombacteriaandarchaeatoanimalsandplants.The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of universal common descent.[23]

The way thatcodons(DNA triplets) are mapped toamino acidsseems to be strongly optimised. Richard Egel argues that in particular thehydrophobic(non-polar) side-chains are well organised, suggesting that these enabled the earliest organisms to createpeptideswith water-repelling regions able to support the essential electron exchange (redox) reactions for energy transfer.[25]

Selectively neutral similarities

edit

Similarities which have no adaptive relevance cannot be explained byconvergent evolution,and therefore they provide compelling support for universal common descent. Such evidence has come from two areas:amino acidsequences and DNA sequences. Proteins with the same three-dimensional structure need not have identical amino acid sequences; any irrelevant similarity between the sequences is evidence for common descent. In certain cases, there are severalcodons(DNA triplets) that code redundantly for the same amino acid. Since many species use the same codon at the same place to specify an amino acid that can be represented by more than one codon, that is evidence for their sharing a recent common ancestor. Had the amino acid sequences come from different ancestors, they would have been coded for by any of the redundant codons, and since the correct amino acids would already have been in place,natural selectionwould not have driven any change in the codons, however much time was available.Genetic driftcould change the codons, but it would be extremely unlikely to make all the redundant codons in a whole sequence match exactly across multiple lineages. Similarly, shared nucleotide sequences, especially where these are apparently neutral such as the positioning ofintronsandpseudogenes,provide strong evidence of common ancestry.[26]

Other similarities

edit

Biologists often[quantify]point to the universality of many aspects of cellular life as supportive evidence to the more compelling evidence listed above. These similarities include the energy carrieradenosine triphosphate(ATP), and the fact that all amino acids found in proteins areleft-handed.It is, however, possible that these similarities resulted because of thelaws of physics and chemistry- rather than through universal common descent - and therefore resulted in convergent evolution. In contrast, there is evidence for homology of the central subunits oftransmembrane ATPasesthroughout all living organisms, especially how the rotating elements are bound to the membrane. This supports the assumption of a LUCA as a cellular organism, although primordial membranes may have been semipermeable and evolved later to the membranes of modern bacteria, and on a second path to those of modern archaea also.[27]

Phylogenetic trees

edit
BacteriaArchaeaEukaryotaAquifexThermotogaBacteroides–CytophagaPlanctomyces"Cyanobacteria"ProteobacteriaSpirochetesGram-positivesChloroflexiThermoproteus–PyrodictiumThermococcus celerMethanococcusMethanobacteriumMethanosarcinaHaloarchaeaEntamoebaeSlime moldsAnimalsFungiPlantsCiliatesFlagellatesTrichomonadsMicrosporidiaDiplomonads
Aphylogenetic treebased onribosomal RNAgenes implies a single origin for all life.
Main article:Phylogenetic tree
See also:Tree of life (biology)

Another important piece of evidence is from detailed phylogenetic trees (i.e., "genealogic trees" of species) mapping out the proposed divisions and common ancestors of all living species. In 2010, Douglas L. Theobald published a statistical analysis of available genetic data,[3]mapping them to phylogenetic trees, that gave "strong quantitative support, by a formal test, for the unity of life."[4]

Traditionally, these trees have been built using morphological methods, such as appearance,embryology,etc. Recently, it has been possible to construct these trees using molecular data, based on similarities and differences between genetic and protein sequences. All these methods produce essentially similar results, even though mostgenetic variationhas no influence over external morphology. That phylogenetic trees based on different types of information agree with each other is strong evidence of a real underlying common descent.[28]

Objections

edit
2005tree of lifeshows manyhorizontal gene transfers,implying multiple possible origins.

Gene exchange clouds phylogenetic analysis

edit
Further information:Horizontal gene transfer

Theobald noted that substantialhorizontal gene transfercould have occurred during early evolution. Bacteria today remain capable of gene exchange between distantly-related lineages. This weakens the basic assumption of phylogenetic analysis, that similarity of genomes implies common ancestry, because sufficient gene exchange would allow lineages to share much of their genome whether or not theyshared an ancestor (monophyly).This has led to questions about the single ancestry of life.[3]However, biologists consider it very unlikely that completely unrelated proto-organisms could have exchanged genes, as their different coding mechanisms would have resulted only in garble rather than functioning systems. Later, however, many organisms all derived from a single ancestor could readily have shared genes that all worked in the same way, and it appears that they have.[3]

Convergent evolution

edit
Further information:Convergent evolution

If early organisms had been driven by the same environmental conditions toevolve similar biochemistry convergently,they might independently have acquired similar genetic sequences. Theobald's "formal test" was accordingly criticised by Takahiro Yonezawa and colleagues[29]for not including consideration of convergence. They argued that Theobald's test was insufficient to distinguish between the competing hypotheses. Theobald has defended his method against this claim, arguing that his tests distinguish between phylogenetic structure and mere sequence similarity. Therefore, Theobald argued, his results show that "real universallyconservedproteins arehomologous."[30][31]

RNA world

edit
Main article:RNA world

The possibility is mentioned, above, that all living organisms may be descended from an original single-celled organism with aDNAgenome,and that this implies a single origin for life. Although such a universal common ancestor may have existed, such a complex entity is unlikely to have arisen spontaneously from non-life and thus a cell with a DNA genome cannot reasonably be regarded as the origin of life. To understand the origin of life, it has been proposed that DNA based cellular life descended from relatively simple pre-cellular self-replicatingRNAmolecules able to undergonatural selection.During the course of evolution, this RNA world was replaced by the evolutionary emergence of the DNA world. A world of independently self-replicating RNA genomes apparently no longer exists (RNA viruses are dependent on host cells with DNA genomes). Because the RNA world is apparently gone, it is not clear how scientific evidence could be brought to bear on the question of whether there was a single origin of life event from which all life descended.

See also

edit

Bibliography

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ^Now calledhomology.

References

edit
  1. ^Weiss, Madeline C.; Sousa, Filipa L.; Mrnjavac, Natalia; Neukirchen, Sinje; Roettger, Mayo; Nelson-Sathi, Shijulal; Martin, William F. (2016-07-25)."The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor".Nature Microbiology.1(9): 16116.doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.116.ISSN2058-5276.PMID27562259.S2CID2997255.
  2. ^Forterre, Patrick; Gribaldo, Simonetta; Brochier, Céline (October 2005)."[Luca: the last universal common ancestor]".Médecine/Sciences.21(10): 860–865.doi:10.1051/medsci/20052110860.ISSN0767-0974.PMID16197904.
  3. ^abcdefgTheobald, Douglas L. (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry".Nature.465(7295): 219–222.Bibcode:2010Natur.465..219T.doi:10.1038/nature09014.PMID20463738.S2CID4422345.
  4. ^abSteel, Mike;Penny, David (13 May 2010)."Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test".Nature.465(7295): 168–169.Bibcode:2010Natur.465..168S.doi:10.1038/465168a.PMID20463725.S2CID205055573.
  5. ^Doolittle, W. Ford(February 2000)."Uprooting the Tree of Life"(PDF).Scientific American.282(2): 90–95.Bibcode:2000SciAm.282b..90D.doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0200-90.PMID10710791.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 2006-09-07.Retrieved2015-11-22.
  6. ^Glansdorff, Nicolas; Ying Xu; Labedan, Bernard (9 July 2008)."The Last Universal Common Ancestor: emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner".Biology Direct.3:29.doi:10.1186/1745-6150-3-29.PMC2478661.PMID18613974.
  7. ^Ohtomo, Yoko; Kakegawa, Takeshi; Ishida, Akizumi; et al. (January 2014). "Evidence for biogenic graphite in early Archaean Isua metasedimentary rocks".Nature Geoscience.7(1): 25–28.Bibcode:2014NatGe...7...25O.doi:10.1038/ngeo2025.
  8. ^Borenstein, Seth (13 November 2013)."Oldest fossil found: Meet your microbial mom".Yahoo News.Associated Press.Archived fromthe originalon 2019-11-10.Retrieved2015-11-22.
  9. ^Noffke, Nora;Christian, Daniel; Wacey, David;Hazen, Robert M.(16 December 2013)."Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures Recording an Ancient Ecosystem in theca.3.48 Billion-Year-Old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia ".Astrobiology.13(12): 1103–1124.Bibcode:2013AsBio..13.1103N.doi:10.1089/ast.2013.1030.PMC3870916.PMID24205812.
  10. ^abZimmer, Carl(4 May 2018)."The Very First Animal Appeared Amid an Explosion of DNA".The New York Times.Archived fromthe originalon 2022-01-01.Retrieved4 May2018.
  11. ^abPaps, Jordi; Holland, Peter W. H. (30 April 2018)."Reconstruction of the ancestral metazoan genome reveals an increase in genomic novelty".Nature Communications.9(1730 (2018)): 1730.Bibcode:2018NatCo...9.1730P.doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04136-5.PMC5928047.PMID29712911.
  12. ^Darwin 1859,p. 490
  13. ^Staff, I. C. T. (13 September 2018)."We Are All Related: Indigenous Knowledge Reaffirmed by Digitized Tree of Life".Ict News.Retrieved2021-05-05.
  14. ^Crombie & Hoskin 1970,pp.62–63
  15. ^Treasure 1985,p. 142
  16. ^Kant 1987,p.304:"Despite all the variety among these forms, they seem to have been produced according to a common archetype, and this analogy among them reinforces our suspicion that they are actually akin, produced by a common original mother."
  17. ^Darwin 1818,p. 397 [§ 39.4.8]
  18. ^Darwin 1859,p. 484
  19. ^Darwin, C. R. 1860. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 2nd edition, second issue, page 466
  20. ^Krogh, David. (2005).Biology: A Guide to the Natural World.Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 323.ISBN978-0321946768"Descent with modification was accepted by most scientists not long after publication of Darwin'sOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selectionin 1859. Scientists accepted it because it explained so many facets of the living world. "
  21. ^Kellogg, Vernon L.(1907).Darwinism To-Day.Henry Holt and Company. p. 3
  22. ^Gregory, T. Ryan (2008)."Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path".Evolution: Education and Outreach.1:46–52.doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z.
  23. ^abKnight, Robin; Freeland, Stephen J.; Landweber, Laura F. (January 2001). "Rewiring the keyboard: evolvability of the genetic code".Nature Reviews Genetics.2(1): 49–58.doi:10.1038/35047500.PMID11253070.S2CID12267003.
  24. ^Than, Ker (14 May 2010)."All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds".National Geographic.Archived fromthe originalon May 15, 2010.Retrieved22 November2017.
  25. ^Egel, Richard (March 2012)."Primal Eukaryogenesis: On the Communal Nature of Precellular States, Ancestral to Modern Life".Life.2(1): 170–212.Bibcode:2012Life....2..170E.doi:10.3390/life2010170.PMC4187143.PMID25382122.
  26. ^Sharma, N. S. (2005).Continuity And Evolution Of Animals.Mittal Publications. pp. 32–.ISBN978-81-8293-018-6.
  27. ^ Lane, Nick(2015).The Vital Question: Why Is Life The Way It Is?.Profile Books.ISBN978-1781250365.
  28. ^Theobald, Douglas L."Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies".29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.Version 2.89.The TalkOrigins Foundation.Retrieved2009-11-20.
  29. ^Yonezawa, Takahiro; Hasegawa, Masami (16 December 2010)."Was the universal common ancestry proved?".Nature.468(7326): E9.Bibcode:2010Natur.468E...9Y.doi:10.1038/nature09482.PMID21164432.S2CID4318346.
  30. ^Theobald, Douglas L. (16 December 2010)."Theobald reply".Nature.468(7326): E10.Bibcode:2010Natur.468E..10T.doi:10.1038/nature09483.S2CID4317014.
  31. ^Theobald, Douglas L. (24 November 2011)."On universal common ancestry, sequence similarity, and phylogenetic structure: The sins of P-values and the virtues of Bayesian evidence".Biology Direct.6(1): 60.doi:10.1186/1745-6150-6-60.PMC3314578.PMID22114984.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_descent&oldid=1253567602"