Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40770984›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025

The hard steps model and whole Earth-system transitions.

Andrew Watson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The hard steps model and whole Earth-system transitions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Chance and purpose in the evolution of biospheres.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Andrew WatsonGlobal Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9654-8147

Funding

Royal Society
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hard steps model is a 'toy' mathematical representation of evolution towards complex life on Earth or Earth-like planets. It assumes that, at the longest time scale, the rate of evolution towards increased complexity is governed by unlikely transitions that happen randomly and rarely. Applied to Earth, the model suggests a small number of such transitions in the pathway to 'intelligent observers'-humans. The transitions are usually envisaged as occurring instantaneously, but this ignores the reality that on Earth, the evolution of life and the planetary environment have been inextricably linked. The critical steps should be seen as initiating whole Earth-system transitions that take hundreds of millions of years to complete, as in the events that caused, and followed after, the Paleoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic glacial episodes. These were both caused by, and drivers of, evolutionary advances that were necessary for complex life to arise. I adapt the model to include such delays and show that it then suggests just two or three hard steps to humans. The model predicts that the search for biosignatures in exoplanet atmospheres may find planets with Archean-like atmospheres, but probably will not find the signature of a planet with a Proterozoic or modern Earth-like atmosphere.This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Chance and purpose in the evolution of biospheres'.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEarth, PlanetEvolution, PlanetaryModels, TheoreticalOrigin of LifeExobiologyExtraterrestrial EnvironmentPlanetsastrobiologybiosignaturesevolutionexoplanets

Identifiers

PMID40770984
PMCPMC12329452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.