Of course anyone can choose their own list of life's great inventions, and my list is personal, however well I may justify it. Nonetheless, each of these inventions transfigured the world, ultimately making our own existence possible. Here's the short story.
1. The Origin of Life
![]() |
Reproduced with permission from Deborah S. Kelley and the Oceanography Society |
2. DNA
DNA is unique. RNA, chemically very similar, is far more unstable and reactive and couldn't encode organisms much more complex than a virus. For life to get going, DNA was needed. How a primordial RNA world gave rise to DNA and proteins is one of the great questions in biology. Yet a "code within the codons" gives suggestive clues to the origin of DNA and also points to life's origin in alkaline hydrothermal vents. A deep distinction in DNA replication mechanisms and other traits imply that bacteria and archaea emerged independently from a common ancestor in the vents.
3. Photosynthesis
Without photosynthesis life couldn't get very far. Photosynthesis provides both the fuel and oxygen for respiration -- and only aerobic respiration generates enough energy to support multicellular life. Oxygenic photosynthesis arose just once in the history of evolution, in cyanobacteria. The trick demands an elaborate biochemical scheme to extract electrons from water and thrust them onto carbon dioxide. Without that improbable pathway, we would not be here.
4. The Complex Cell
![]() |
cyanobacteria. Image: Courtesy of Catherine Colas des Francs-Small University, Western Australia. |
5. Sex
Sex is absurd. It costs a small fortune to find a partner, transmits foul venereal diseases and parasitic genes, and randomises successful allele combinations. Worse, sex requires males, viewed by implacable feminists and evolutionists alike as a waste of space. Why we all have sex anyway was seen as the queen of evolutionary problems in the 20th century. Recent work shows that over time all complex species would degenerate like the Y chromosome without sex. The details help explain why sex first arose, enabling early eukaryotes to thrive.
6. Movement
Muscles set animals apart. They power grazing and predation and make food webs a reality. The proteins responsible for contractility -- actin and myosin -- are ubiquitous in eukaryotes and even in bacteria, propelling amoebae around, supporting plant cells, and helping bacteria divide. Actin forms dynamic cross links in much the same way that variant haemoglobin distorts red cells in sickle-cell anaemia. Selection fashioned such spontaneous quirks into the might of muscle.
7. Sight
![]() |
Image: Courtesy of Walter Gehring, Biozentrum, University of Basel, Switzerland. |
8. Hot Blood
Endothermy drives a supercharged lifestyle, making our own 24/7 dynamism possible. Many small mammals eat as much in a day as a lizard does in a month. A big benefit is stamina, but there is no necessary connection between stamina and resting metabolic rate, and theropods like Velociraptor may have had the best of both worlds. One driver for endothermy may have been diets rich in carbon but low in nitrogen, such as leaves. Herbivores gain enough nitrogen from leaves if they eat a lot and jettison the excess carbon. Endotherms cleverly burn it off, gaining stamina while subsisting on a lower quality diet.
9. Consciousness
Consciousness is the most subversive evolutionary adaptation. It enabled us to transform the world -- but there are still deep uncertainties about what it actually is. We don't know yet how neurons firing in the brain can generate a feeling of anything: what, if anything, a feeling is in physical terms. This is what philosophers call the "hard problem," and some say answering it requires a radical overhaul of the laws of physics. The answer may lie in bees, which have complex neural reward systems -- they may not be truly conscious, but if they feel anything at all, they already possess the physiological rudiments of consciousness.
10. Death
Without death, natural selection would count for nothing, and life could never have evolved at all. Without cell death, or apoptosis, multicellular organisms are not possible. The key to both is mitochondria. They generate reactive free radicals that slowly undermine health, but in the short term optimise respiration, enhancing fitness when young. The penalty for vigour in youth is decrepit old age. There's hope. Birds leak fewer free-radicals, and live longer than mammals, without losing their vigour. The anti-aging pill may not a myth.
Are these the best ten evolutionary inventions? You might disagree, but each one on my list transformed our planet, overwriting previous revolutions with new layers of complexity. Each dominates our lives today, each is scientifically and culturally iconic, and each evolved by natural selection. While fascinating in their own right, together they tell the remarkable story of life on Earth. More dramatic, more compelling, more intricate than any creation myth, this story has the added advantage of being, to a first approximation, true.
Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution, by Nick Lane, Profile Books, London, 2009. 288 pp. ISBN: 978-1-861-97848-6. £18.99.
Nick Lane is a biochemist and honorary reader at University College London. His previous books include Oxygen and Power, Sex, Suicide, and he's been described by Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek as "a writer who's not afraid to think big -- and think hard." Lane's current research is on the constraints imposed by chemiosmosis in the origin and evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
Related stories:
[18th November 2008]
[September 2008]
[July 2007]




[Comment posted 2010-10-29 15:03:51]
I think it should be obvious why some people would rather post anonymously-- they fear consequences, whether good or bad. They may be a very famous person and does not want their ?fame? to detract from their message. Who knows why people choose not to identify themselves and who cares. I, personally, would be much more fearful of self appointed censors who judge material not on its merits but on some personal desire to apparently silence challenges to their worldview. Now, that is just my opinion, which is probably not worth a whole lot. However, whether you know me or not, if the shoe fits wear it
[Comment posted 2010-09-02 06:44:15]
RNA is stable chemically: it's instability in the "modern" world (i.e. after the beginning of evolution) is a consequence of the evolution of RNA digesting proteins and RNA digesting RNAs, now ubiquitous.
RNA appears to be capable of carrying out many catalytic activities and could have formed the basis of an early self-replicating RNA ecology. Or so I've heard
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 16:11:25]
I will leave it to God to speak for himself. I will leave it to the arrogant to speak for religions, purportedly, in the name of God. I will speak for myself, and I will share my opinions with other scientists to try to comprehend the nature of the ongoing creation of life. Many of us will embrace the principles of science to clarify our understandings and appreciation of the complex nature of the universe. This seems to be one of the better paths to developing a sound philosophy and a better world
The book?s points are good and reasonably comprehensive, but serve as a starting point for perspective and dialog. The alkaline vents are interesting. The convergence of cells for symbiosis is a well taken point, but is sort of like sex. Sex is clearly a high risk with a great long term payback. Vision is certainly a way for life to have extended its scope and complexity.
Thought provoking dialog is one of the best results from such writings.
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 05:17:29]
Apoptosis does of course have another role in remodelling tissue during embryogenesis, and defending against disobedient unregulated (cancerous) cell growth.
[Comment posted 2009-05-24 16:41:19]
Could evolution get a patent on life?
Evolution is a result of change of the kind of life not an original designer of life.
[Comment posted 2009-05-23 03:33:12]
philosophical) anonymous posts should not be allowed.
Frank (Yeruham) J Leavitt, PhD
Faculty of Health Sciences
Ben Gurion University
Beer Sheva, Israel
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 22:47:59]
Instead of DNA, I would nominate the "genetic code" - proteins and the ribosomes that make them - a single consistent mechanism to specify anything from keratin to mucus, chlorophyll to cobra venom. Though the existence of "prosthetic groups", SECIS elements, and NRPS demonstrate that standard protein synthesis also has its limitations, chemists are still hard pressed to rival it. Without this versatile but consistent method to translate genome into chemistry, horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes or from endosymbionts to host cells might never have been possible, and even within a species sexual recombination might have been unreliable.
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 21:25:16]
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 17:48:15]
There are other matters of interesting discussion worth tinkering with, but this does nothing that distracts from the importance of the book. Again, I suggest this is a must buy!
Donald Wolberg
Socorro, NM
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 15:24:49]
Faith is engaged in by humans.
Humans are limited in their (our) capacity to measure and accumulate knowledge, to process with absolute rigor what we know, to distinguish between what we know for certainty as opposed to what we only rationalize into interpretations that fit the CURRENT POOL of our insufficient knowledge.
Nature may be complete, but the study of it is not. And science as a study, should not be mistaken for that which it studies. The study of a thing is not the thing itself. And if any would argue that he is qualified to speak for "science," then let him satisfy us all as to how he came about the entirety of all its secrets, and arrived at their perfect interpretation, and did so without any bias whatsoever.
And if the student of God (or the true believer in Him) would have us believe he is knows all there is to know of Him, then let that person step up and speak for God.
Let the rest of us listen with our whole mind and heart, while those two thrash out the details for us, so we can get on with studying what we waste time arguing about... out of ignorance.
Gp ahead, Nature's duly authorized spokesperson.
Go ahead God's duly authorized spokesperson.
I, at least, am all ears.
Hello? Are you there?
I'm waiting. Aren't we all. Are we not willing and ready to listen to these two spokespersons who have complete and perfect knowledge and reason to offer, to set the record straight as to whether science needs God, or God needs science, or one exists to the exclusion of the other.
Go ahead. Don't be shy. Speak up. And, by all means, begin by telling us your perfect credentials and the name of the "giver" of your
authority.
If you do not step up and take on the role of qualified spokesman for Nature or God, or both, then what say you offer your OPINIONS and your personal PREDILECTIONS and your own private, individual choices of ASSUMPTIONS for what they are... and avoid the PRETENSE of being qualified to paint the kettle black.
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 13:38:59]
Regarding the last bit, I don?t see anything anticreationist in it, what I think Lane was saying was, isn?t this an amazing (and weird) story of how things really seem to have evolved. On the other hand for a strict creationist a book on evolution isn?t likely to sit well no matter what.
But the picks are well chosen, and given it is on the entirety of evolutionary time, I can?t see how an innovation like antibiotics carries the same weight. Possibly down the road our innovations will effect evolutionary changes as profound as these.
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 13:34:27]
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 12:42:29]
As far as truth claims, even many non-beleivers, like Stephen jay Gould or Thomas Kuhn for example, might take exception to your claims. Truth claims change science into philosophy, so be careful not to declare your philosophy as the new dogma.
One minor question: When you say that each evolved by natural selection, are you contradicting what you said about endosymbiosis being a non-Darwinian mechanism?
DH
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 12:14:46]
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 12:09:26]
Then I read the first anonymously posted comment above, and think: Ah, for cryin' inna two-tone bucket!
You can lead a horse to water,
but you can't make him drink;
You can lead an anti-evolutionist to evidence,
but you can't make him think!
------------------------ Burma-Shave
[Comment posted 2009-05-22 11:38:19]