• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am

Evolution Without Accidents

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Evolution Without Accidents

Unread post

Evolution without accidents
Despite advances in molecular genetics, too many biologists think that natural selection is driven by random mutations

Since 1859, when Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was first published, the theory of natural selection has dominated our conceptions of evolution. As Darwin understood it, natural selection is a slow and gradual process that takes place across multiple generations through successive random hereditary variations.
...A lot has changed since 1859. We now know that Darwin’s ‘gradualist’ view of evolution, exclusively driven by natural selection, is no longer compatible with contemporary science.
...Today, we know in exquisite detail how these larger-scale ‘spontaneous’ variations come about without the intervention of random mutations.
...One of the most significant of these alternatives is symbiogenesis, the idea that evolution can operate through symbiotic relationships rather than through gradual, successive changes.
...According to molecular geneticists in 1965, mutations were supposed to take place only in two ways: through errors in DNA replication limited to just one or two base pairs, or by deletions of longer stretches of the genome. I eventually showed that the puzzling mutations I found in E coli were caused by the insertion of long segments of genetic material, typically more than 1,000 base pairs.
...This discovery revealed an entirely new mechanism of genetic regulation and variability: maize plants were rapidly changing their own genomes through transposable controlling elements (TEs). And moreover, TE changes were nonrandom in two ways. Firstly, the same DNA element could insert repeatedly at new target sites; and, secondly, TE mobility and mutagenic activity was activated by specific organismal stress conditions.
...For example, herbivorous beetles and nematode worms weren’t always able to digest complex plant polysaccharides. They acquired the enzymes allowing them to digest plants in a fully evolved state through horizontal DNA transfer from various bacteria and fungi. Horizontal DNA transfer occurs across all taxonomic boundaries in Earth’s biosphere and in both directions between complex and simpler organisms.
...Like horizontal DNA transfer, ‘domain shuffling’ involves inserting extended segments of protein-coding DNA in various locations in the genome. This means that cells can cut and splice their own DNA molecules, a capability that I call ‘natural genetic engineering’.
...By turning evolutionary variation from random accidents to biological responses, 21st-century molecular genetics and genomics have revealed that living organisms possess tremendous potential for adaptive genome reconfiguration. For evolution scientists, this revelation poses an important set of obligations. Those obligations include reorienting our studies of adaptive variation towards learning how deeply genome change is integrated with biocognitive sensory responses. This new evolutionary paradigm will require a more organic mode of research that combines genomics, physiology and cognitive science. For some philosophers of science, 21st-century evolutionary biology will require rethinking all the purely mechanical physics-based assumptions they have held about life. Biologists will have to incorporate as foundational a recognition that rapid genome reorganisation is not only a feature of all organisms but, evidently, has proved essential for the survival of life on an ecologically diverse and dynamic planet.
Obviously this is not new - it reminds me of a very early BookTalk discussion of The Global Brain by Howard Bloom. I recall being amazed that bacteria appeared to engineer their genetic code around a problem, perhaps turning poison into food, etc.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
13
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2341 times
Been thanked: 1022 times
Ukraine

Re: Evolution Without Accidents

Unread post

I just came here to reference the same article.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-darwins- ... n-so-wrong
For those who have followed the Gould/Dawkins debate over the years, this is another solid case that Dawkins has been too rigid in his thinking about mechanism in evolution. (Probably he has come around by now, especially on the exclusivity of the mutation mechanism.) This article features the work of Barbara McClintock on jumping genes and "controlling elements" (which I found fascinating - that level of detail was new to me). She received a Nobel in 1983, so obviously Dawkins was aware of her work, but if I remember right he acknowledged it but treated it, as did much of the field of evolutionary biology, as a minor curiosity with no serious implications for the importance of mutation as a driver for speciation and ordinary evolution.

Gould, by contrast, was interested in finding exceptions to orthodoxy, such as group selection and his own idea of punctuated equilibrium, so he gave McClintock several favorable mentions and speculated that it could have serious implications for the course of evolution.

The idea that Transposable Controlling Elements (TE's) could become more active in response to stress is intriguing. In fact it sounds like something out of science fiction. Yet, if you think about it, the idea that evolution "speeds up" in response to stress seems to make sense. The organisms we see may well be comparatively rich in such responsive TE's, which gave them a leg up at critical points in evolution's past.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”