▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
I think the filter was eukaryogenesis [1]. (Which in turn depends on the endosymbiosis of mitochondria.) Put simply, I expect the universe is littered with single-celled life. I think multicellular life, on the other hand, is rare. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | andrewflnr a day ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Eukaryogenesis != Multicellularity. There are tons of unicellular eukaryotes. Also, multicellularity has evolved a bunch of times, at least in eukaryotes, so I doubt it's that rare. If your thesis is specifically that oxygen-powered metabolism fueling multicellularity is rare... that wasn't clear. And I'll still say that endosymbiosis being the shortest path to scaling oxygen metabolism is probably Earth happenstance (with a reminder that cellular endosymbiosis is also common). But some critter had to originally evolve oxygen metabolism before being turned into mitochondria. What if that had evolved in a cell prepared to directly take advantage of it? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | Qem 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> Which in turn depends on the endosymbiosis of mitochondria. Which in turn depends on existing enough atmospheric oxygen for mitochondria to make sense in first place. I believe the filter is atmospheric oxygen. If Earth had more iron in the crust, perhaps the cyanobacteria would never finish oxidizing all of it, and we would be doomed to only host microscopic life forever. Macroscopic life requires high-energy metabolism molecular oxygen allows. | |||||||||||||||||
|