LIFE IN THE OCEANS: THE ANIMALS EVOLVE
AND BEGIN TO SPREAD
BEGINNING
ABOUT 14 DECEMBER; ABOUT 953,600 METERS UP THE LINE
The basic physical laws of the
Universe gave rise to the elements, and on this planet the elements gave rise
to life. Simple one-celled organisms evolved, and gradually complexity evolved
within some of their lines of descent. Certain kinds of cells unconsciously
began to associate with each other and form colonies of cells that had the
effect of enhancing their members’ survival prospects. Gradually, there evolved
true multicellular life forms, the first of which we know of was an algae.
Other colonies of cells adhered to each other in epithelia and engaged in
heterotrophy, sexual reproduction, and aerobic respiration. These were the
first true animals, and these small but enormously important beings would
ultimately give rise to all the subsequent members of the Kingdom Animalia, of
which we are a part. It is to the evolution and spread of the animals,
therefore, that we will now turn our attention. Scientists speak of the spread
of a life form as its radiation. As
the processes of natural selection choose the reproductive winners and losers
in various ecosystems, speciation occurs. In evolutionary terms, this is known
as adaptive radiation, as new forms
appear in an environment, often including multiple variations on the ancestral
populations’ genotypes. The massive upheavals in the Earth’s climate and the
constant movements of the continental landmasses, with their attendant
earthquakes, volcanism, mountain building, and changes in the absorption of
sunlight over various regions of the Earth’s surface, were the great engines of
change that helped drive the evolution and radiation of the animal kingdom. The
changes in the various environments of the Earth interacted with the
variability inherent in the genetic composition of particular populations to
produce an amazing variety of animal life. As is the case with every step in
our chronology, this development did not guarantee the rise of consciousness;
it simply made such a rise more probable.
The Rise of Cell Specialization and Selective Gene Expression
Each cell in an animal’s body,
with the exception of gametes (sex cells) and mature red blood cells in
vertebrates, contains a full complement of the animal’s DNA, the complete
instructions for building the animal in question. Yet animals are a system of
systems, comprised of specialized organs that perform all the tasks necessary
for the survival and potential reproduction of the animal. How do the cells
that comprise these organs “know” how to form particular kinds of organs when
the animal is in an embryonic state, and how do they “know” how to reproduce
into particular kinds of cells once an animal is born and matured? How do they
“know” what parts of their genetic material to activate and what parts not to
activate? In other words, why are they specialists, why do they possess the
ability to engage in selective gene expression? (In the process of gene
expression, you will recall, genetic information from DNA is first transcribed
by messenger RNA and then translated with the aid of transfer RNA and ribosomal
RNA, a process that synthesizes first amino acids and then proteins.) What
factors favored the rise of cell specialization to begin with?
One researcher hypothesizes that
cell specialization, by allowing for the expression of fewer genes, protected
genetic material from the influence of mutagenic agents in the environment, and
was therefore reinforced by natural selection.1 Another researcher
has an intriguing hypothesis: when a colony of cells grows large enough, it can
“afford” to have certain cells engage in more specialized tasks, an event which
of course happens completely by stochastic means. If the “experiment” in
specialization fails, the colony can absorb this failed innovation without too
much disruption. This gives larger organisms an evolutionary pathway not open
to simpler, smaller ones. They can take more “risks”, and by doing so
potentially reap greater rewards.2 (Would it be stretching this
example too far to say that human societies operate in the same way? The larger
a human society and the more divided its work, the more it can afford to let
innovators and experimenters engage in activities not directly related to the group’s survival.)
If cell specialization is indeed
in part a function of an organism’s size, that specialization, by definition,
survives by enhancing the organism’s reproductive chances. This involves the
evolution of “cellular altruism”, as certain cells specialize in such a manner
so as to facilitate the reproduction of other cells, even as they themselves
will not be reproduced. The complexity that arose from this increasing tendency
toward specialization is not “irreducibly complex”, despite the assertions of
some misguided individuals. It emerged in small increments over time, and its
innovations were simple.3 This is not to say that all of these
increments have been discovered, nor that all the mechanisms that underlie
specialization have been elucidated. As one research scientist has put it,
Such transitions require the reorganization of fitness, by which we mean
the transfer of fitness from the old lower-level individual to the new higher
level, and the specialization of lower-level units in fitness components of the
new higher-level individual. It is a major challenge to understand why (environmental
selective pressures) and how (underlying genetics, population structure,
physiology, and development) the basic features of an evolutionary individual,
such as fitness heritability, indivisibility, and evolvability, shift their
reference from the old level to the new level.4
What causes changes in gene
expression at the molecular level? Research indicates that selection is at work
even in the translation process itself. Certain codons (triplets of bases along
a molecule of DNA or messenger RNA that code for a specific amino acid) seem to be translated more readily, and there may some sort
of relationship between the length of a gene and the kinds of codons that are
“preferred”. It appears that concentrations of transfer RNA
(tRNA) in amino acids can vary as well, affecting the course of protein
synthesis. This in turn can open a path for evolutionary change within
proteins, one that can result in phenotypic changes in a developing organism.
In other words, even at the molecular level, there is enough variability to allow
natural selection to make its typically blind “choice”.5
There are other considerations as
well. The material that makes up a cell nucleus, the chromatin, consists of DNA
and proteins known as histones.
Histones bind tightly to DNA, making it very compact, since they and DNA have
opposite electrical charges. (Once again we see how the simple rules that
govern the physical world affect every area of reality.) The chemistry of
histones can be affected by such processes as acetylation (the addition of an
acetyl group), methylation (the addition of a methyl group), or phosphorylation
(the addition of a phosphate group).6 There is evidence that such
changes in histones may in turn bring about changes in the chromatin structure
itself, and hence in the genes found along the length of the DNA. Such changes
may hint at the existence of a histone
code that regulates other proteins. This process may represent yet another
layer of variation that exists, and may gave us insights into the evolution of
a phenomenon known as an epigenome,
the genes that regulate other genes in an organism.7 Gene expression
is controlled by the epigenome, which activates some genes while silencing
others. The key genes in the epigenome are known as homeobox genes. Their function has been described by one biologist
in the following manner:
Since their discovery in 1983, homeobox genes, and the proteins they
encode, the homeodomain proteins, have turned out to play important roles in
the developmental processes of many multicellular organisms. While certainly
not the only developmental control genes, they have been shown to play crucial
roles from the earliest steps in embryogenesis … to the very latest steps in
cell differentiation…They have a wide phylogenetic distribution, having been found
in baker's yeast, plants, and all animal phyla that have been examined so far.
Since their original discovery, hundreds of homeobox genes have been described.8
The fact that homeobox genes are
found in such a diverse array of life forms means that this kind of regulatory
gene complex is in all probability very, very ancient. We see evidence of this
in the early evolution of animals. In the evolving animal kingdom, there was a
split that emerged very early on between bilaterians,
animals that are bilaterally symmetrical, which is to say possessing distinct
and similar sides and identifiable anterior and posterior ends, and cnidarians, sac-like animals that are
radially symmetrical. Certain gene clusters arising from the ancestral homeobox
genes are so ancient that they actually pre-date the split between the two
basic body types.9 (This would make their lineage in animals more
than 520 million years old.) It was the evolution of the first forms of these
regulatory genes and then the evolution of diverse types of them that made
possible the tremendous variety of distinct animals that have appeared on this
planet, and yet animals that have retained, across huge sections of the animal
kingdom, a great many homologies.
It is cell specialization that has
allowed animals to evolve the internal and external structures they possess.
Beginning with the simplest specializations in the simplest organisms,
specialization became enormously elaborated over the course of hundreds of
millions of years, creating systems within systems that facilitated the
reproductive success of countless organisms—until external environmental
changes caused the adaptations that had evolved in those organisms to become
obsolete. This obsolescence was the harbinger of extinction. Ancestral groups
were wiped out, leaving only their descendant groups, if any. It would probably
be most accurate, in my view, to think of selective gene expression and cell
specialization as mutually reinforcing phenomena, as natural selection blindly
favored organisms that were subdivided into useful specialized areas, and the
genes in the DNA that enabled this specialization were “rewarded” by greater
frequency of expression. Specialization worked. Large organisms could
“experiment” with greater and greater levels of specialization. Starting at
least 1.6 billion ybp, beginning with the appearance of the first true
multicellular life forms, such experiments have been carried out ceaselessly in
the laboratory of the Earth’s evolving biosphere.
The Origins of Sentience
Living things are open systems by
definition, exchanging energy-matter in various ways with the environment in
which they live, using the energy acquired to both facilitate their own
survival and to perpetuate their genetic material. With the advent of multicellular
animals, a new survival requirement arose: the
ability to feel the world and
respond to it. Natural selection began producing feedback loops, at the
start nothing more than simple chemical responses to the environment. As these
feedback loops, buttressed by reproductive success, became part of more
elaborately-organized synergistically-functioning networks, sensation emerged.
Plants respond to the world; animals (at least in some sense) experience the world and respond to it.
In that element of experience lies a crucial distinction that sets animals
apart. Animals, being heterotrophic, have a greater level of interactivity with
the rest of the physical world than plants which, with a few notable
exceptions, obtain the energy necessary for their survival from the more
passive processes of photosynthesis. And although there are completely
sedentary animals living in environments which expose them to adequate amounts
of nutrients, most animals are mobile and therefore need some way to move about
in three spatial dimensions. In the course of these movements, they need
information. (Information is here defined as a kind of energy the detection of
which by a living thing is capable of causing a modification of the living
being’s behavior.) Living animals need
information about:
1. Their own status as physical entities, both
for their survival and for the maintenance of their internal equilibrium.
2. Their position relative to other objects,
information they need in order to navigate.
3. The presence and location of food and other
resources.
4. Possible threats from other animals or other
potential environmental danger.
The possession of this
information is not optional—it is the sine
qua non of a mobile animal’s physical survival on this planet. Natural
selection, therefore, favored those animals which acquired, by means of
favorable mutations, electrochemical ways of obtaining this information—nervous
systems.
A nervous system is the individual animal’s only contact with the real reality.
Particular kinds of nervous systems create distinct versions of that reality,
or at minimum emphasize certain key aspects of it. Nervous systems are a
mass of sensory feedback loops, engaged in endless signaling and/or self-corrective
activity, sending electrochemical messages that are coordinated and acted upon
(to some extent) in a central organ—a brain—of some kind. Cell specializations
conducive to the ability to gather information about the environment evolved,
and with them, sentience—the ability
to experience the world as a distinct set of physical sensations that are
interpreted by an animal as feeling.
As animal life evolved, more complex organisms needed (and were
characterized by the possession of) correspondingly more complex nervous systems,
especially if the organisms were very mobile and situated in hostile
environments. Natural selection tends to favor efficiency in the gathering and
use of information, rewarding facility in these areas with increasingly likely
survival odds. What energies constitute this vital information? Most lineages
of animals evolved the means to detect ranges within the light spectrum. Most
lineages of animals evolved the means to detect wave frequencies in the air or
water that are interpreted as sound. Most animal lineages evolved ways of
detecting the presence of certain chemicals in the environment that are
interpreted as smell. Most animal lineages evolved a means of testing the
edibility of plants or other animals that is interpreted as a sense of taste. Some
animals evolved highly specialized sensory apparatuses that allow them to
detect the presence of an electrical field. It could be said that proprioception, the ability of an animal
to orientate its limbs in space, represents a sense of equal importance to the others.
And there are many other senses which, it could be argued, have their own
distinct modes of operation. But of all the senses, the ability to detect
energies from the environment that are interpreted as touch or feeling is perhaps
the most vital. The most basic rules of animal life, it could be argued, are
these: Stimuli an animal finds pleasant attract it; unpleasant stimuli drive it
away; the range of relatively neutral stimuli with which an animal is
surrounded constitutes its ordinary sensory environment, an environment which
may or may not be agreeable to other animals.
It is necessary for animals to know when they are being injured in some
way so that they can engage in response activities. If the injury is being inflicted
by another animal, they can fight it or flee from it. Injury, and the pain
arising from it, force an animal to take
action. This suffering runs on a continuum ranging from mild irritation to
intolerable agony. Truly, pain is the curse of the animal kingdom. And the pain
response within an animal can be brutally persistent—it keeps signaling long
after the information it has sent has been acted upon. But without it, animals
would suffer constant injuries without realizing it. Further, its reduction signals
healing and the body’s ability to resume normal activity. In animals with more
elaborated nervous systems, the continuous action of feedback loops saying
“touch this/don’t touch that” forms the basis of a routine which is
internalized and which guides the animal’s movements when the animal is
awake. (We will examine various aspects
of this subject more deeply in a subsequent volume.) Suffering is a hard form
of instruction, but it is a very powerful one.
More broadly, the ability to
suffer—which goes back deep in the history of the animal kingdom—can be said to
be the basis of moral consciousness in humans. We will elaborate on this point
at some length elsewhere, but here let it suffice to say that if we are aware
of our own potential for suffering and recognize in others an approximately
equal capacity for it, we have established the fundamental basis of moral
sensibility. Sentience in the other animals, in my view, also gives them a
moral claim upon us, at minimum to show humaneness to them even as we hold them
captive and kill them for our food. All of these various issues have roots that
go back hundreds of millions of years, when animal life began to feel the
world.
In general, from whence did
nervous systems arise? In his 1976 study of the brain, Steven Rose addressed this
question. He discussed the tendency of even one-celled organisms to exhibit
“behaviors”. In explaining the response of bacteria to the presence of
nutrients in their immediate environment, he pointed out how the structures on
the surfaces of bacteria known as chemoreceptors must sense in some way the
location of the nutrient in relation to the bacterium and cause it to move
toward the food source. This action could be effected by a change in the
electrical potential of the cells.10 The evolutionary advantage of such
a property is obvious, and in the operation of this simple electrochemical
system of “communication” we see, perhaps, the deep origin of the
electrochemical operation of our own highly advanced nervous systems. John Morgan
Allman points to the example of Escherichia
coli in this regard:
E. coli has more than a dozen different types of receptors on its
surface. Some are specialized for the detection of different nutrients, such as
particular types of sugar, which provide energy, or amino acids, which are the
building blocks of proteins; other receptors are responsive to toxins, such as
heavy-metal ions.11
So even single-celled life forms
show a remarkable sensitivity to external stimuli. As clusters of single cells
formed colonies, and then evolved increasingly sophisticated interconnections
among themselves, nervous systems began to emerge. The key principle that
governs the evolution of nervous systems across broad ranges of animal life is
the conservation of genomes and structures. For example, there are certain
marked similarities in the sensory apparatuses of arthropods and vertebrates,
such as the similarities between the sensory bristles of flies and the hair
cells in the inner ear of vertebrates. There are also similarities among insects,
roundworms, and vertebrates in the genes that produce various kinds of neurons.
The presence of these features in such widely divergent taxa indicates their
origin was in a very ancient common ancestor. They have been conserved because
they were useful.12 I would like to reserve the detailed examination
of the evolution of the vertebrate nervous system for the chapters on the
evolution of the human brain. But it must be reiterated: with the rise of
animals, and the emergence of nervous systems, energy-matter could now sense
the world of which it was a part. Specifically, the evolution of sentience was
to put life on wholly new paths, and establish the foundation from which
consciousness could arise. The world could now be felt. Because of that development,
the world could later be consciously changed.
Fossil Evidence of the
Earliest Animal Life
As we go back deeper in time, it
is no surprise that the physical evidence of animal life becomes harder and
harder to find. We must suppose that the very earliest animal life was no
bigger than meiofauna—extremely small
animals that would have left only trace chemical evidence and no fossilized
remains whatsoever. So what is the earliest fossil evidence yet uncovered (to
this date)? In 2010, researchers from Princeton University discovered what
appear to be primitive sponge-like animals dated at 650 million ybp. The
animals are indeed quite small, but they are larger than the smallest extant
meiofauna.13 And research sponsored by the National Science Foundation
has uncovered a biomarker (chemical evidence characteristic of organisms)
particular to demosponges, estimated to be 635 million years old.14
Some scientists believe the Cryogenian Era of global glaciation extended to 635
million ybp. (Others put the end date at around 650 million ybp.) If those
using the 635 million year estimate are correct, there may have been animals
that survived some of the worst glaciation in the Earth’s history, albeit near
the end of that period.
Genetic analysis of an utterly
simple animal life form known as Placozoa
has given intriguing indications that these little animals, which lack a
nervous system (just as the sponges do) are quite possibly the animal the
ancient forms of which formed the base of the animal kingdom. Placozoa in fact may
have possessed, even before the split between the bilaterians and cnidarians,
the basic genetic “toolkit” that influenced the development of both groups.15
Unfortunately, no fossil forms of Placozoa have been uncovered, which is unsurprising
given that this animal is composed exclusively of soft tissue.
The Ediacaran Fauna
There is a significant amount of
physical evidence for the animal life that appeared during the Ediacaran Period, which stretched from
635 million to 542 million ybp.16 Often, this length of time is
referred to in the literature as the Vendian
Period, and it is the last period of the Proterozoic Era. The life forms
characteristic of this time were first discovered in southeastern Australia. Since
then they have been discovered on every continent except Antarctica. The
evidence of these earliest animals is usually in the form of impressions that
have been fossilized. The organisms often resemble those of the phylum
Cnidaria, which includes the jellyfish and corals. Other examples appear to be
similar (superficially) to arthropods (segmented-like animals, common examples
of which are insects, centipedes, and scorpions) annelids (segmented worms),
and echinoderms (starfish-like animals).17 They appear to have definitely
existed by around 565 million ybp. All are invertebrates, animals that lack a
spinal column. Some scientists question whether there are true living
descendants of the Ediacaran organisms, but others are confident the
descendants of these humble animals are still among us. Given the somewhat
complex body features of many of these specimens, we must infer that there were
more rudimentary forms of animal life that preceded them. As one paleontologist
has expressed it, the fact that the Ediacaran fauna form “a fully integrated ecosystem”
with several advanced types means that animal life may have appeared soon after
the end of the Cryogenian Period.18
The Cambrian “Explosion”: An Acceleration or an Eruption?
The Cambrian Period stretched from
542 million to around 488 million ybp.19 A great many new life forms
evolved during this time, and in many places in the literature one sees this
abundance of new organisms referred to as the Cambrian “Explosion”. The term is
misleading, in the view of some. If we consider many of the Ediacaran Fauna and
the Cambrian fauna to form a continuous group, it took tens of millions of
years for all the new forms to appear. It might be useful, as Donald Prothero
puts it, to refer rather to the Cambrian “Slow Fuse”.20 Yet, as Stephen
Gould argued, by the end of a period of 100 million years every phylum that
still exists had appeared, and no others have evolved since that time.21 So perhaps this
period can be thought of as an eruption, if one remembers that “eruption” is a
relative term when thinking in geological time scales. In the context of the
long billions of years in which life on Earth was dominated by single-celled
organisms, the appearance of so many new forms in a “mere” tens of millions of
years might indeed seem revolutionary. In effect, during the Cambrian, we see a
proliferation of new body plans, new
ways to organize a living thing, many of which are still present in vast
numbers in the biosphere, and evidence of increasing cell specialization during
this period of relatively rapid change.
What kinds of animals appeared
during this period of evolutionary history? All Cambrian life forms were ocean
dwellers, living on a planet where the position and extent of the landmasses were
drastically different from what they are now. What were once sea beds are now
often parts of the dry land. So there are many locales on the Earth where
Cambrian fossils have been discovered. But a few sites are particularly
outstanding. One of our major sources of knowledge concerning the Cambrian fauna
is located in the Chengjiang region, in the vicinity of Kunming in the eastern
part of Yunnan Province in southern China. The Chengjiang fauna date from about
515 million to 520 million ybp. (Some sources extend their earliest appearance
to 530 million ybp.) Extensive analysis and exploration of this Konservat Lagerstätte—a German term that
simply means a location that contains a highly diverse and/or exceptionally
well-preserved trove of specimens—has been done since 1984. Researchers have identified
228 different species, although some of them cannot be readily assigned to a
particular phylum. More than a third of the species appear to belong to
Arthropoda; about 12% of them are Porifera (sponges); then, in descending frequency,
species are a part of Priapulida (predatory worm-like animals), Lobopodia
(another kind of worm-like animal), and perhaps most significantly, Chordata,
to which about 4% of the species belong. About a third of the phyla are present
in concentrations lower than Chordata.22 The specimens from the
phylum Chordata—chordates—are
members of the phylum that includes humans. The Chengjiang chordates include
two primitive vertebrates, backboned
animals, as well, Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa and Haikouichthys ercaicunensis, which is highly
significant.23
Equally impressive is the
evidence we have from the Burgess Shale of eastern British Columbia, the
specimens of which were deposited around 500 million ybp. This rare glimpse
into the Cambrian world was discovered in 1909 by Charles D. Walcott of the
Smithsonian Institution, who did exceptionally thorough and important work on
the site.24 Many of the specimens uncovered and examined by Walcott,
the indefatigable Simon Conway Morris, and other researchers, have an unusually
high degree of preservation, with evidence of soft body tissue that is usually
lost through decay. Among the animals in the Burgess collection there are
arthropods (including crustaceans of many kinds and the well-known animals
called trilobites), a host of often beautifully-shaped sponges, strange-looking
worms, conical-shaped shell-covered animals called hyoliths, mollusks, various
members of Cnidaria, and a member of the phylum Chordata.25 The
Burgess chordate is known as Pikaia
gracilens, which was at first thought
to be a worm, but which later was definitely shown to be a member of our
phylum.
The level of oxygen gas in
seawater is one one-hundredth what it is in the atmosphere. Since no marine
animal can obtain its oxygen by splitting water molecules, marine life depends
on gaseous oxygen in the ocean. All such animals survive by passing dissolved
gaseous oxygen through their bodies. (Obviously marine mammalians do not pass
oxygen through slits in their bodies, as do other marine forms.)26
This fact took on great relevance about 499 million ybp, as a mass extinction
struck the Cambrian fauna at that time. The extinction appears to have been
triggered by a sharp decline in the gaseous oxygen content of the world ocean,
although the exact cause of this abrupt decline is not yet known. Excessive
concentrations of sulphur, a phenomenon known as euxinia, appear to have been a factor, and there is evidence of a
major disruption in the world’s carbon cycle at that time.27 The
loss of life forms was enormous. But among the phyla that survived were the
chordates. Stephen Jay Gould discussed the significance of the survival of the
chordates:
And so, if you wish to ask the question of the ages—why do humans exist?
—a major part of the answer, touching those aspects that science can treat at
all, must be: because Pikaia survived
the Burgess decimation. [The Cambrian extinction]28
Of course, the chordates found in
Chengjiang predate Pikaia. But
Gould’s point remains. Because primitive chordates survived the mass extinction,
all the animals that ultimately evolved from them would come to be. There were
no biological guarantees that animals like ourselves would ever exist. Gould
often emphasized the highly contingent nature of evolution, and pointed out
that the course of evolution could have taken innumerable turns different from
the ones it actually did. Start the whole process over 100 times, and it is
likely you would see 100 different outcomes. Random chance and chains of
unanticipated consequences allowed our deep ancestors to continue, making the rise
of consciousness as we know it a greater possibility. The Cambrian extinction
was a massive selection pressure. For whatever reasons, the little animals with
spinal cords were able to meet the challenge—without ever realizing they had done
so.
Another huge selection event was
the Ordovician-Silurian Extinction, [around
450 to 440 million ybp]. Chiefly affecting the animals of the world ocean, it
wiped out some 85% of all existing marine species, hitting brachiopods and conodonts
particularly severely. Its cause was most likely a (geologically) brief episode
of glaciation. This extinction is now thought to be the second most severe in
the history of life.29
Issues Concerning the Use of Molecular Calibration in the Estimation of
Life Form Divergences
When scientists are being as
careful as possible to not go beyond their evidence, overturn established
hypotheses without the best causes, or employ excessively complex explanations
of phenomena, it is said that they are being parsimonious. As a layperson in this
area, I feel it is my responsibility to be especially careful, to display great
parsimony. There has been, in the life sciences, a vigorous debate, one that
has lasted many years, about the techniques used to determine when certain lineages
of organisms diverged from a common ancestral population. Molecular
evolutionists use certain fixed points, known divergences in the fossil record,
as reference points, or points of calibration, for their estimates of when earlier
divergences occurred. They hold that the rate of molecular change in proteins
is regular enough that their estimates can be used with confidence. However,
other scientists, confronted with estimates of genetic divergences that go far
beyond the actual physical evidence in our possession, have challenged these
techniques. I must emphasize that no scientist questions the basic technique
for measuring genetic “distance” that we touched on in the chapter on
life. It is, rather, the chronology of these divergences that is
at issue. For example, we have seen that primitive vertebrates were uncovered
at Chengjiang, and that these fauna are estimated to be somewhere around 520
million years old. Yet, on the basis of calculations of molecular change, a
very serious estimate has been made that the mean date at which urochordates (a
primitive type of chordate) and vertebrates diverged from a common population
was 794 million ybp30—more
than 270 million years before the earliest vertebrates for which we have tangible
evidence. Findings such as this (not this specific one) have been sharply
criticized on methodological and statistical grounds.31 While the
molecular researchers offer plausible explanations for the huge gap between the
postulated molecular dates of urochordate/vertebrate divergence and the actual
fossil evidence, I am constrained to point out that the genetic evidence seems
to be converging on either the sponges or Placozoa
as the first identifiable members of Animalia.32 And as we have
seen, evidence of sponges in the fossil record goes back no more than 650
million years. Therefore, I will wait to see fossil evidence of vertebrates
almost 800 million years old. Until then, I will remain parsimonious.
Hypotheses Concerning the Evolution of the Vertebrates
When
we are seeking the evolutionary history of a group of life forms, we are trying
to establish their phylogeny. What is
the phylogeny of the vertebrates, the animals that now dominate so much of the
biosphere, and which include humans? There is a superphylum, a very large group
of animals, that includes an immense array of organisms ranging from starfish
to worms to vertebrates. All of these animals share the designation deuterostomes. They are united by
certain embryological traits they all have in common. The common ancestor of deuterostomes
is now thought to have possessed pharyngeal slits—openings in the body of the
kind that eventually evolved into gills in fish—and a segmented mesoderm. (The
mesoderm is a layer of cells in embryos out of which numerous structures, such as
bone and musculature, develop.)33 It was out of the deuterostomes
that chordates emerged. The characteristics of a chordate include the
possession of a dorsal nerve cord
(nerve fibers that run the length of what we might consider an animal’s back
and which connect its “brain”, however primitive, with the rest of its body), a
notochord (a rod-like structure made
out of cartilage that supports the nerve cord), and the possession of
pharyngeal slits in the embryonic stage.34 There is no evidence that
the ancestor of the deuterostomes possessed a
notochord, so we think that such a structure evolved in chordates and is
exclusive to them.35 There
are three subphyla of Chordata. Members of a particular subphylum, Craniata, have skulls in which the brain and various sensory organs are located.
This subphylum contains the great majority of all chordates. In almost all
members of Craniata (with one exception) the embryonic notochord becomes a
column of vertebrae.36 It was the evolution of this transformation
that established the vertebrates. How might this have come about?
Sometimes it’s useful for scientists studying a taxon of animals to look
at close relatives of the taxon to study why the close relatives lack certain
traits the subject taxon possesses. Such is the case with a humble animal known
as amphioxus. Amphioxus is the
closest genetically-related invertebrate to the vertebrates. It may seem like
an odd way to say it, but why aren’t
amphioxi (commonly known as lancelets) vertebrates? They appear to have several
similarities to vertebrates in their nervous systems, and they share certain
important genes with vertebrates. But they apparently lack a single key
structure in their neural cord that vertebrates have. Further, not all of the important
genes they share with vertebrates are expressed in the same manner.37 Vertebrate embryos have a
structure called a neural crest. This
structure is an area that exists in the early stages of vertebrate embryo
development, when the embryo possesses a neural tube (which becomes a spinal
cord). It is from the neural crest that neural
crest cells are disseminated. It is these cells that help create, in
conjunction with other kinds of cells, such structures as the head, the face,
teeth, limbs, and sense organs.38 All of the physical features many people tend to think of when they think
of animals are the products of these cells. Amphioxus never develops a neural
crest, even though it has much of the same genetic inheritance as vertebrates.
Yet, there seems to have been more at work in the split between amphioxus
and the vertebrates than differing structures and unexpressed genes. There is a
phenomenon called genome duplication,
an example of polyploidy (the reproduction of multiple copies of the same genome),
that appears to have had a major effect on the evolution of Craniata (and on
many phylogenies throughout nature). It is not unusual for duplicate copies of
individual genes to be made during meiosis. Such genes are often referred to as
paralogous genes. It is less common
for an entire genome to be duplicated, but occasionally an organism receives a
double set of parental chromosomes. The significance of gene duplication in
evolution is being studied widely in the biological sciences, and the mechanisms
by which this occurs are being elucidated.39 Many scientists
conclude that genome duplication has occurred twice in the evolution of
vertebrates, relatively early in the history of the vertebrate subphylum.40
There is however, not a complete consensus of opinion on this point. Evidence
in support of this contention can be found in the Hox clusters present in vertebrates. A Hox cluster is a group of
homeobox genes that are important in the formation of an animal’s physical
structure from head to tail.41
Vertebrates have four of
these clusters; amphioxus has one.42 This greater genetic
sophistication and complexity has had major consequences. It is these four clusters of Hox
genes that form all the various kinds of vertebrae found in the subphylum Craniata—the
vertebrates. To oversimplify
the matter, Hox genes are why you and I have backbones in the first place. It
is the possession of these Hox clusters that truly differentiates us from the
invertebrates.
The Evolution and Significance of the Skeleton
Through the presence of minerals in
their body chemistry, many taxa of animals have evolved skeletons. Skeletons
fall into two general varieties. Exoskeletons
are shell-like structures that encompass all or most of the soft tissues that
comprise an animal’s interior. Endoskeletons
are the kind of skeleton that we associate with animals like us, an interior
scaffold surrounded by and connected to the musculature, the skin, and other
features. The possession of a skeleton confers certain obvious advantages on its
possessor. An exoskeleton, a feature found in the arthropods, is a first line
of defense against the ravages of the external world. However, its
characteristics tend to put limits on the sizes its possessors can attain (even
though there were some formidable arthropods swimming in prehistoric oceans).
Marine invertebrates, such as squids, can attain a very large size. But the
true behemoths of the natural world have been and are the largest members of
the endoskeleton-possessing subphylum Craniata. Endoskeleton-possessing animals
display an astounding range of sizes and shapes, from the smallest vertebrate
fishes to the largest whales. It is an organizational arrangement that has been
tremendously successful in the history of life. From where does it derive?
Bone itself is formed by what are
known as osteocytes, cells that
specialize in the mineralization of certain kinds of protein. (Osteocytes are
derived in turn from neural crest cells.) The chief mineral found in bone is a
kind of calcium. The first examples of bone-like structures that appear in the
fossil record appear to be parts of what scientists call the dermal skeleton, the first bony structures that evolved to surround both the brain
and those sensory organs found in the head. These bone-like structures include
spongy kinds of bone tissue, thin layers of primitive bone called lamellae, and
the earliest outcroppings of what could called tooth-like objects.43
Many scientists are zeroing in on an extinct group of very small animals, called
conodonts, which are now thought to have
been vertebrates (having previously been considered invertebrate chordates).
Conodonts flourished for more than 150 million years, and appear to have been
the first animals to have tooth-like protrusions in the mouth.44 Some
researchers have concluded that the vertebrate skeleton itself may have its
beginning in this early conodont dentition.45
The first vertebrates were
jawless fishes. The advent of the jaw was a momentous step. Jaws are an example
of how certain body parts can be “repurposed”, so to speak. It now appears that
the vertebrate jaw evolved from the bones that formed the gill arches in
jawless fish.46 Coupled with the evolution of the first true teeth,
this produced an animal far more capable of food gathering, particularly as the
jaw continued to be “rewarded” and refined by natural selection and became a
true instrument of predation in many fish.
The bones that comprise the
skull, the bones that form the vertebrae, and the ribs are known as the axial skeleton. All of the selection pressures
that caused the emergence of the vertebrate body axis, an integrated system of
bones, muscle, and connective tissue, are not yet known. But we do know that
this interdependent arrangement allows the body to bend, it allows the body to
absorb and utilize physical forces, and in the air-breathing vertebrates that
ultimately evolved, it helped facilitate lung function. In the fish that
evolved in ancient seas, the possession of an efficient body axis, along with the
evolution of fins, meant greater maneuverability, bigger physical size, and
increased speed through the water. It was a tremendous advantage. 47
It worked. It was perpetuated.
From the physical structures of
the earliest fin-possessing fish would ultimately evolve the appendicular skeleton—the bones of the
pelvic girdle that support the lower limbs, the bones of the pectoral girdle
that support the upper limbs, and the limb bones themselves. This process will
be examined, briefly, in the chapter The
Animal Kingdom Begins to Colonize the Land.
Suffice it to say, however, that we owe our ability to move about on the
dry land to the structures that evolved to facilitate the ability to move about
in the ocean. Once again, we see the interconnectedness of life on the Earth, and
gain insight into the enormously long heritage that gave rise to us.
The degree of bone-hardening, or
ossification, differs among the vertebrates. There are whole taxa of fish that
are completely cartilaginous. Cartilage has a specific gravity (density in relation
to the density of water) only about half that of bone. Sharks, for example,
have no bone, and never developed a swim bladder to facilitate their buoyancy.
The possession of bones and swim bladders proved to be a tremendous advantage.
There are now fewer than 800 species of cartilaginous fish, as opposed to
almost 21,000 species of fish possessing a bony anatomy.48 We must
conclude, therefore, that by making a greater structural sophistication
possible, bone proved to be adaptively superior, and while most vertebrates
contain both bone and cartilage, bone is the material “favored” by natural
selection for the construction of durable animals.
Other General Considerations
Animals more developed than
cnidarians, ctenophores, and some kinds of worms possess a body cavity, known
technically as a coelom. The coelom
arises in the mesoderm during an animal’s embryonic stage. (Most animals are
what is called triploblastic, which
means they have three distinct cell layers in their embryonic structures.) The
mesoderm itself splits into two layers. One layer becomes the animal’s outer
body wall and the other gives rise to the internal organs. The space they
create is the coelom.49 The coelom’s significance is great. It is
the ability of bodies to form an interior that allows for the rise and
interaction of all organ-based systems within an animal, and all of the
“higher” animals are made possible by it. The evolutionary origins of the
coelom are a matter of differing opinions, but there is some evidence from a Precambrian
Lagerstätte in the Doushantuo
formation (600 million to 580 million ybp) of southern China of a bilaterian
that may have possessed a coelom. If this is true, it would be the earliest
example of which we know.50
A discussion of all hypotheses
concerning the evolution of animal sensory apparatuses is beyond the scope of
this chapter, but it is of interest to consider the role the evolution of eyes
played in the Cambrian “Explosion”. Contrary to the uninformed opinion of some,
eyes can evolve complex structure rather readily, starting simply from
photosensitive skin cells. Arthropods that had structurally advanced eyes have
been uncovered in Australia. The specimens are dated at approximately 515
million ybp, and the unusually well-preserved eyes are of a kind typical of
predatory animals. The evolution of eyes therefore was a tremendous advantage
to the populations in which this occurred, and no doubt was an element of the
unceasing struggle of the heterotrophs to find something to eat—or to keep from
being eaten.51
Fish generally reproduce by means
of external fertilization, meaning that a female deposits a layer of eggs on an
underwater surface and a male releases sperm in order to fertilize the eggs—a
chancy reproductive proposition. But a Devonian Period class of fish known as
the Placodermi appears to have been the first vertebrate group to evolve one of
the most momentous abilities in the history of the Animal Kingdom—internal fertilization. Internal
fertilization involves the insemination of a female’s egg inside of her body,
followed either by the laying of an egg (oviparity)
or the internal development of offspring, culminating in birth. In scientific
parlance, the process of gestation and birth is known as viviparity. Remarkable fossil evidence from Western Australia has
revealed the presence of embryos inside fish of the placoderm genus Incisoscutum. There are also structures
within these fish that are associated with copulatory abilities. Dated at 380
million ybp, this is the earliest evidence yet seen of the method of sexual
reproduction that would ultimately come to be the dominant one among the mammals—like
us.52 There is evidence that internal fertilization evolved
independently several times in the history of animal life.
If it were possible to observe the
fauna of the Cambrian ocean, the arthropods known as trilobites would be seen
in abundance. These segmented animals, many of which were just a few
centimeters in length, had well-developed eyes and hard shells for their defense.
They were among the survivors of the Cambrian extinction. They were also
astonishingly long-lived as a subphylum. Trilobites have been found as far back
as 570 million ybp, and the last specimens didn’t die out until around 225
million ybp. Few animals have had greater success in the history of life than
that.53
The Geography and Climate of the Earth From the Late Proterozoic to
the Middle Paleozoic World
The late Proterozoic landmasses
were relatively sparse. Supercontinent Rodinia had broken up, and the world’s
land was distributed in a roughly even manner both north and south of the
Equator. By the time of the Cambrian Period, in the early Paleozoic Era, there
was a much greater landmass on the Earth.54 In the early Cambrian,
about 535 million ybp, the vast bulk of the Earth’s landmass was south of the
equator. What was to be South America was connected to Africa, India, and
several other major landmasses in a supercontinent geologists call Gondwana. A smaller landmass named Laurentia, which was to be the physical
foundation of North America, straddled the Equator. Baltica, which was to be the foundation of much of Europe, and
Siberia, were smaller, disconnected landmasses among several others of
relatively small size. By the late Cambrian, at 500 million ybp, Siberia and Laurentia
had moved farther north, but were still largely in the southern hemisphere.
What is now North Africa was at or near the South Pole. Not until 400 million
ybp were there significant landmasses of any size in the northern hemisphere, in
a geologic period called the Early Devonian. Gondwana was still the largest
landmass, and Laurentia, Baltica, and another landmass had coalesced to form a
continent geologists refer to Laurussia.55
The Ediacaran Fauna had faced tough
climatic conditions, as the late Proterozoic was characterized by extensive
glaciation. By the middle Paleozoic Era there is reason to believe the global
climate had grown significantly warmer, with average temperatures in the
Cambrian and Ordovician Periods believed to have been in the vicinity of 25
degrees Centigrade (around 77 degrees Fahrenheit).56 The massive
shifting of continental-sized landmasses and the tremendous fluctuations of
climate underscore again the non-equilibrium inherent in the story of this planet,
a non-equilibrium that was to challenge, again and again, the descendants of
the Cambrian Period’s inhabitants.
On the Cusp of the Next Transformation
Were we somehow able to view the
life forms of the Cambrian Period ocean (prior to the extinction event), we
would see an astounding array of animal life, most of which would be utterly
unfamiliar to us. By the middle of the Devonian Period, around 400 million ybp,
we would see the ocean teeming with a wide variety of fishes. The photosynthetic
life of the Cambrian Period ocean, primarily algae of various kinds, some of
them multicellular forms a few inches long at best, most of them single-celled
organisms, would not have impressed us very much. But these sunlight-eating
life forms were about to transform the entire planet Earth. The next great
revolution that was to shake the history of life was now at hand: the evolution
and movement of true plant life onto the dry land of the world.
1. Niu, D.K, and
Chen, J. K. “Evolutionary advantages of cell specialization: save and
protect DNA” in Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 7 July 1997.
2. Willensdorfer, Martin.
“Organism Size Promotes the Evolution of Specialized Cells in Multicellular
Digital Organisms” in Journal of
Evolutionary Biology, January 2008.
3. Michod, Richard
E., “Evolution of individuality during the transition from unicellular to
multicellular life” in Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 9 May 2007.
4. Michod.
5. Akashi, Hiroshi. “Gene
Expression and Molecular Evolution” in Current Opinion in Genetics and Development,
2001.
6. “DNA structure and gene expression”, NCBI
Books, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7585/
7. Strahl, Brian D. & C. David Alli, “The language of
covalent histone modifications” in Nature,
Volume 403, January 2000.
8. Bürglin, T.R, “The Homeobox Page”,
http://www.biosci.ki.se/groups/tbu/homeo.html
9. Garcia-Fernàndez, Jordi, “The Genesis and
Evolution of Homeobox Gene Clusters” in Nature Reviews: Genetics, Volume 6,
December 2005
10. Rose, Steven, The Conscious Brain, pp.
140-141
11. Allman, John Morgan, Evolving Brains, pp. 3-5
12. Ghysen, Alain, “The origin and evolution of
the nervous system” in International
Journal of Developmental Biology, 47, pp. 555-562, 2003.
13. “Possible discovery of
earliest animal life pushes back fossil record” in e! Science News, 17
August 2010
14.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/02/04/fossil.steroids.record.advent.earliest.known.animals
15. Schierwater,
Bernd Michael Eitel, Wolfgang Jakob, Hans-Jürgen Osigus, Heike
Hadrys, Stephen L. Dellaporta, Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis, Rob
DeSalle, “Concatenated Analysis Sheds Light on Early Metazoan Evolution and
Fuels a Modern ‘Urmetazoon’ Hypothesis” in PLoS
Biology, January 2009
16. International Stratigraphic Chart,
http://www.stratigraphy.org/column.php?id=Chart/Time%20Scale
17. Carroll, Robert L., Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, p. 343
18. “An introduction to the Ediacaran
fauna”, http://ediacaran.blogspot.com/2008/11/introduction-to-ediacaran-fauna.html
19. International Stratigraphic Chart
20. Prothero, pp. 161-165
21. Gould, Wonderful Life, p. 60
22. Zhao Fang Chen, Zhu Mao
Yan, and Hu Shi Xue, “Community Structure and Composition of the Cambrian
Chengjiang Biota” in Science China,
December 2010
23. Zhao, et al
24. Briggs, et al, pp. 1-9
25. Briggs, passim
26. Garrison, Essentials of Oceanography, 5th Edition,
p. 133
27. Benjamin C.
Gill, Timothy W.
Lyons, Seth A. Young,
Lee R. Kump,
Andrew H.
Knoll Matthew R.
Saltzman “Geochemical evidence for widespread euxinia in the Later
Cambrian ocean” in Nature, Volume
469, 5 January 2011
28. Gould, p. 323
29. Sheehan, Peter M., "The Late Ordovician
Mass Extinction" in Annual Review of
Earth Planetary Science 2001. 29:331–64
30. Jaime E. Blair and S. Blair Hedges,
“Molecular Phylogeny and Divergence Times of Deuterostome Animals” in Molecular Biology and Evolution, 27 July
2005
31. Graur Dan, and William Martin, “Reading the
entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of
precision” in Trends in Genetics,
February 2004
32. “Sponge Reveals Animal Origins” in Astrobiology Magazine, August 7, 2010
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3578/sponge-reveals-animal-origins
33. Henry Gee, Major Events in Early Vertebrate Evolution, pp. 1-12
34. “Introduction to the
Chordata”,
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/chordata.html
35. Gee, Major
Events, pp. 1-12
36.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vertebrates.html
37. Holland, Linda Z and Nicholas Holland, Major Events, pp. 15-27
38. Gee, Major
Events, pp. 1-12
39. Jianzhi Zhang, “ Evolution by gene
duplication: an update” in Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, June 2003
40. Paramvir
Dehal, Jeffrey L. Boore, “Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the
Ancestral Vertebrate” in PLoS Biology,
October 2005
41. Bürglin
42. Holland and Holland, Major Events, pp. 33-37
43. Colbert, Edwin H, and Morales, Michael, Evolution of the Vertebrates: A History of
the Backboned Animals Through Time, Fourth Edition, pp. 5-6;
Calloni, Giordano W., Nicole M. Le Douarin, and Elisabeth Dupin,
“High frequency of cephalic neural crest cells shows coexistence of neurogenic,
melanogenic, and osteogenic differentiation capacities” in PNAS, 2 June 2009
44. Sweet, Walter C., and Donoghue, Philip C. J.,
“Conodonts: Past, Present, Future” in Journal
of Paleontology, Volume 75, Number 6, 2001
45. Donoghue, Philip C. J., and Aldridge, Richard
J., “Origin of a Mineralized Skeleton” in Major Events
46. Colbert and Morales, pp. 30-31
47. Koob, T. J., and Long, J. H., “The Vertebrate
Body Axis: Evolution and Mechanical Function” in Integrative and Comparative Biology, Vol. 40, 2000
48. Carroll, pp. 174-176.
49. Noriko Funayama, Yae Sato, Ken Matsumoto,
Toshihiko Ogura, and Yoshiko Takahashi, “Coelom formation: binary decision of
the lateral plate mesoderm is controlled by the ectoderm” in Development, 1999.
50. Schmidt-Rhaesa, Andreas, The evolution of organ systems, p. 167
51. Lee, Michael S. Y., James B. Jago, Diego C.
García-Bellido, Gregory D.
Edgecombe, James G. Gehling, John R. Paterson, “Modern optics
in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia” in
Nature, 29 June 2011
52. John A. Long, Kate Trinajstic, Zerina
Johanson, “Devonian arthrodire embryos and the origin of
internal fertilization in
vertebrates” in Nature, Volume 457, 26
February 2009
53. Levi-Setti, Riccardo, Trilobites, Second Edition, passim
54. The Paleomap Project,
http://www.scotese.com/precambr.htm
55. Cocks, L. R. M., and T. H. Torsvi, “European
geography in a global context from the Vendian to the
end of the Palaeozoic”, in
Gee, D. G. & Stephenson, R. A. (editors) in European Lithosphere Dynamics, 2006
56. The Paleomap Project,
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment