Tubeworms live around deep-sea vents

9 hours ago (economist.com)

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...

  • Regarding Davies' book, what are the first four miracles that the title is referencing?

    • It's a Bible reference.

      >The fifth miracle of Davies' title refers to Genesis 1:11: "Let the Land Produce Vegetation." (The first four Biblical miracles are the creation of the universe, the creation of light, the creation of the firmament and the creation of dry land.) It is proverbial in the popular science publishing world that God is good for sales, especially since Steven Hawking sold millions of copies of an otherwise unremarkable book by promising that a unified physical theory would enable us "to know the mind of God." Commercial requirements alone seem to have dictated that word "miracle," since Davies begins the book by disavowing it. Like other evolutionary scientists he starts with the presumption that "it is the job of science to solve mysteries without recourse to divine intervention." Life is not a miracle because scientists wish it to be a product of natural forces which they can explain.

      - http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/fifthmiracle.htm

  • 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.

    • 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"?

      2 replies →

https://archive.is/I23NT - mirrored

I won't pretend to be a biologist, so forgive me if this is naïve, but this does feel like it's at least within the realm of possibility of working similarly on Europa, right? As in a non-zero chance at least.

  • It would be bold to declare it impossible. We know so little about abiogenesis. There might be a critical ingredient or condition that Earth had which Europa lacks.

    Or maybe not. Europa’s ocean could be teeming with life.

The title of the article is incorrect, the worms live in the crust, not "beneath the planetary crust" (in the magma).

The Economist magazine is not what it used to be, sadly.

  • We’ve known about tube worms for an awfully long time. If we found them in the mantle that actually would be worth a news article. This is middle school biology. And has been for decades.

  • I finally unsubscribed this summer.

    • For me the last straw was a piece they did on Julian Assange when he was still going through his kangaroo court debacle in the UK, a pure hit job. It was gruesome stuff.

  • Yeah, beneath the planetary crust is asking a lot.

    Probably didn't want to settle for less but you take what you can get . . .

my personal take on evolution,is based on two fact like pieces of information, first is that life can perhaps be seen as extreamly complex assemblies of matter and energy and second that the universe is a vast field of energy gradients with a general mish mash of all of the possible elements of matter lodged in a variety of disks,spheres,blobs,and ribbons, leaving much of it open for life to work in some form which is just a re phaseing of what many have suggested is the feeling of the inevitability of life,which I might add,is miracle enough