This is us now

 

There is something strangely reassuring about our ultimate evolutionary ancestors being "Asgard Archaea" found inside "Loki´s Castle" in the Atlantic Ocean midway between Iceland and Svalbard. 

The hypothesis is that an archaeum captured a bacterium...and this became the first eukaryotic cell. All (?) extant living creatures which aren´t Archaea or Bacteria are Eukaryota, including humans. The idea that our evolutionary ancestor was a hybrid between two different lineages (presumably combining the best traits of both) is obviously also appealing. Are you listening, Lynn Margulis? 

Note also that we are no longer bacteria "cladistically speaking", but rather archaea. Thank you. Always considered archaea to be more cool somehow!

This is us now.  

Endosymbiosis

 

The philosophical/existential implications of this video are downright *staggering*. Staggering, I say! 

For a very long time, humanity assumed that we were at bottom spiritual creatures, with a soul and so forth. But according to recent research, we are actually *created by mitochondria to enhance their survival*, the mitochondria being bacterial endosymbionts which still retain a certain amount of independence after billions of years of co-evolution with their hosts. 

Since these bacteria need oxygen to survive, they have "created" bodies with lungs which can process...oxygen. Richard Dawkins once said that we are machines programmed by our genes. But if the man above is right, we are programmed by *another organism entirely*. It even controls our psychology (i.e. our most basic states of mind) and perhaps even our ageing! 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH...  

Via media or Neo-Lamarckian extravaganza?

Some quotations from the website "The Third Way: Evolution in the era of genomics and epigenomics". Most are from the book presentations on the site. I haven´t included the titles of the books. The site is "alternative" (with a slight Neo-Lamarckian bent) but not creationist. All theories are within the bounds of naturalism. Think Lynn Margulis and the like. Link to the starting page immidiately below!

The Third Way of Evolution

"Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis".

"Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring."

"Epigenetics can potentially revolutionize our understanding of the structure and behavior of biological life on Earth. It explains why mapping an organism’s genetic code is not enough to determine how it develops or acts and shows how nurture combines with nature to engineer biological diversity."

"Reaching beyond biology, epigenetics now informs work on drug addiction, the long-term effects of famine, and the physical and psychological consequences of childhood trauma."

"In BEEM, author and engineer Raju Pookottil boldly diverges from the Darwinian theory of natural selection and offers a thought provoking counter-hypothesis for the evolution of all living organisms. He proposes that every species, be it single cells, plants or animals, are equipped with the fundamental mechanisms that allows them to generate intelligent and logical decisions that they could then utilize in directing their own evolution. Whereas natural selection depends on random mutations followed by selection, Pookottil argues that species are capable of deciding how to logically construct themselves to near perfection over many generations, making modifications to their own genes where necessary. The principles of emergence, swarm intelligence and signal networks, which he proposes are available to all living organisms, could in fact be the real forces that cleverly and logically drive the evolution of every species on earth. "

"Here you will learn why it is wrong to describe organisms as genetically programmed; why environmental induction is likely to be more important in evolution than random mutation; and why it is crucial to consider both selection and developmental mechanism in explanations of adaptive evolution."

"This novel book is the first to properly address the controversial issue of plant intelligence, arguing convincingly that cells and whole plants growing in competitive wild conditions exhibit aspects of plant behaviour that can be accurately described as 'intelligent'. The author expands on three main insights drawn by the Nobel Prize winning botanist Barbara McClintock: firstly that plant cells may have knowledge of themselves; secondly that they receive challenges which lead to behavioural changes; finally, that they do so in a manner which implies assessment and intelligent behaviour. "

"In this groundbreaking book, Adrian Bejan takes the recurring patterns in nature—trees, tributaries, air passages, neural networks, and lightning bolts—and reveals how a single law of physics, the Constructal Law (1996), accounts for the evolution of these and all other designs in our world."

"In the 150 years since publication of the Origin of Species, we have discovered three main sources for this variation – mutation, hybridisation and epigenetics. Then on Sunday, 12th February, 2001 the evidence for perhaps the most extraordinary cause of variation was simultaneously released by two organisations – the code for the entire human genome. Not only was the human genome unbelievably simple (it is only ten times more complicated than a bacteria), but embedded in the code were large fragments that were derived from viruses – fragments that were vital to evolution of all organisms and the evidence for a fourth and vital source of variation – viruses."

Via media or Lamarckian extravaganza? That is the question. Either way, please enjoy!

Fair use, educational purpose only, no copyright infringement intended, etc etc.  

The art of making sense

James Lovelock. Note Gaia statue (?) in the background.

"Metanoia" is a DVD presentation and extended teaser trailer to the book "Darwin's Unfinished Business" by Simon G Powell. The presentation features Powell himself, and has some pretty good footage, almost like a real documentary. I haven't read the actual book (yet), but I might consider it. From the top of my head, I agreed with most points made by "Metanoia". Indeed, I considered it somewhat boring!

The main idea of "Metanoia" is something Powell dubs "natural intelligence". Evolution is all about "the art of making sense" or "bio-logic". Reductionism makes science obsess about the seemingly mechanical or chance-driven processes of individual genes or organisms, but if the system is looked upon as a whole, it's clearly intelligently designed. Evolution "makes sense" only against a backdrop of natural laws, which themselves are sensible and rational. Gaia theory is appealed to at several points in the presentation. Intelligence and creativity are part of the deep structures of the universe, and were always "poised to emerge". The second half of the presentation contains Kulturkritik of our overcrowded cities and isolation from Nature, "our forsaken birthright".

Powell attacks creationism at the beginning of "Metanoia", claims that his theory is 100% natural, and that the concept of natural intelligence can't be found in any religion. This is surely a tactic of some kind. If the universe is intelligently designed, who designed it? If it designed itself (so to speak), in what sense is that different from pantheism? Indeed, "Metanoia" seems to be calling for a "new" pantheist religion at the very end, even quoting Carl Sagan on the subject. At Youtube, Powell is asked whether he believes in process philosophy, and responds, somewhat tongue-in-cheek that he does...on week days! Process philosophy believes in a kind of deistic-pantheistic god, which in some sense is also "personal".

While it doesn't prove much, I noticed that Amazon has paired "Darwin's Unfinished Business" with books by Rupert Sheldrake, Lynn Margulis and Thomas Berry, but also some more "far out" material which could be based on Steiner and Findhorn.

Everything is well with the world. ;-)

From symbiogenesis to the Truth Movement

“Lynn Margulis: The Life and Legacy of a Scientific Rebel” isn't a biography of the controversial scientist, but rather a volume containing a number of relatively short tributes written by friends, co-workers and admirers. The collection is edited by Dorion Sagan, Lynn's eldest son from her first marriage. Yes, her husband was none other than Carl Sagan.

Margulis is most known for her theory of “symbiogenesis”, the idea that evolutionary change is driven by symbiotic mergers of two or more organisms, or by lateral gene transfer between completely unrelated organisms, rather than by more “classical” Neo-Darwinist mechanisms. Today, it's widely accepted that mitochondria and chloroplasts are descended from bacteria which entered a symbiotic relationship with bacteria of a different species. Margulis and her supporters want to go even further, in effect dethroning gradual natural selection and random mutations altogether as primary evolutionary mechanisms. Thus, Margulis loved to point out that the only empirically proven instances of speciation in a lab involved symbiogenesis, including a Drosophila (fruit fly) being “infected” by bacteria! On a more general level, her point was always that everything should be seen in terms of process, intricate webs and self-regulating systems. Complexity, it seems, was around from the very start, already during the era of bacteria.

Lynn Margulis had other controversial ideas, too. She was a “woman of the Left”, a supporter of Fidel Castro's Cuba, denied that HIV caused AIDS, and eventually came to believe in the conspiracy theories of the Truth Movement. Her turn to the dark side came under the influence of David Ray Griffin. During the 1960's, she explored LSD and wrote in a psychedelic magazine. Above all, however, Margulis was the co-originator of the much maligned Gaia theory alongside James Lovelock. While Margulis' theories were non-partisan by themselves, symbiogenesis and Gaia theory are easier to square with a “collectivist” or “cooperative” perspective on society, while Neo-Darwinism seems to reflect competitive capitalism or worse. Of course, Gaia theory has become a New Age staple, despite Margulis and (I suppose) Lovelock being agnostics or atheists. Less controversially, Lynn Margulis wrote on the poetry of Emily Dickinson (Lynn actually lived near the Dickinson estate).

Unsurprisingly, the contributors to this Gedenkschrift are very varied. Some are solid scientists and emphasize that Gaia theory is wholly naturalistic and non-teleological. Others are more into shamanism and other spiritual pursuits. Still others talk more about Margulis' politics than her strictly scientific endeavors. Everyone bashes Richard Dawkins, who once called the confrontational and verbose Lynn Margulis “Attila the hen”. Ironically, Dorion Sagan has managed to procure a positive blurb from the very same Dawkins! Notable contributors include William Irwin Thompson, David Ray Griffin, James Lovelock, Niles Eldredge, David Abram, and Lynn Margulis herself (posthumously).

Unfortunately, most contributions are fairly short and only skim the surface of things. Still, it's interesting that this book exists at all. To the general public, Lynn Margulis is almost unknown. Both Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould managed to promote themselves better. Perhaps this book could serve as a kind of “teaser trailer” to the broader Margulis problematique.

Finally, I love the photos in this book, especially the photo showing Lovelock and Margulis standing in front of a Gaia statue…in Lovelock's own garden! Funny, considering all their denials that Gaia theory has anything to do with religion and spirituality! ;-)

Even stranger than Intelligent Design

“Metamorphosis” is a book by Frank Ryan, a biologist who occasionally stints as a popular science writer. This seems to be the original edition. A later edition comes with forewords by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan. There may be some other differences between the editions, too, but unfortunately I haven't seen the later one.

“Metamorphosis” is presumably directed at the “educated public”, and often comes across as rather boring. It contains chapters on various scientists who unraveled parts of the mystery of metamorphosis among amphibians, insects or marine invertebrates. What makes the book really interesting is that Ryan supports various “heretical” notions about the evolution of metamorphosis and the origins of species in general. This explains Lynn Margulis' interest in his work. The late Margulis was most famous for her proposal that symbiosis is a major factor in the emergence of new species. Her idea that the eukaryotic cell emerged through symbiosis between different kinds of bacteria have been accepted by science, but not her wider (and wilder) claims about “symbiogenesis” as a new evolutionary mechanism overall. Ryan does Margulis one better, introducing the ideas of marine biologist Donald Williamson to a wider audience.

I admit that I had never heard of Williamson before reading Ryan's tome, despite being an unofficial connoisseur of alternative theories about this and that. Like all marine biologists, Williamson was struck by the enormous differences between larvae and adults in many species of marine organisms. Juveniles and adults can look like two different species. In some starfish, the larva (which is “bilaterally symmetric”) and the adult (which is “radially symmetric”) develop simultaneously (!) from the same embryo, which raises all kinds of awkward questions about how the same set of genes can produce two entirely different body-plans. Other starfish have adults that develop from the larva as off-shots, rather than the larva as a whole metamorphosing. Other anomalies include starfish without a larval stage and an embryonic development suggesting that they are “protostomes” rather than “deuterostomes”. Since these categories are seen as evolutionary basic, it's a problem why some creatures end up on the wrong side of the fence (imagine if some humans procreated through laying eggs – it's that weird). Finally, there are strong similarities between the larvae of completely unrelated organisms, so similar that convergent evolution seems something of a stretch.

Williamson proposed a radical solution to these conundrums. The complex life cycles of the contentious creatures didn't evolve gradually through the usual Neo-Darwinist processes. Rather, we are dealing with a saltationist event. The reason why echinodermates (the phylum to which starfish belong) have chimera-like life cycles is because the larvae and the adults really were different species originally. The primordial starfish didn't have a larval stage at all, and hence no metamorphosis. The larvae were “captured” from an entirely different line of evolution through chance hybridization. The sperm of a larva-like creature fertilized the eggs of a non-metamorphosing starfish (or perhaps the other way around), and the result was a bizarre combination of both creatures, confounding marine biologists ever since…

To most biologists, Williamson's thesis sounds crazy. It's the kind of “solution” pre-scientific medieval monks might come up with in their leisure time. One obvious counter-argument is that completely different evolutionary lines can't hybridize. Hybrids, even sterile hybrids, always take place between closely related species. Dogs and wolves are a good example, horses and donkeys another. Yet, Williamson was proposing that organisms from entirely different phyla could mate and beget viable and fertile offspring. A “phylum” is a very basic category, animals belonging to different phyla having virtually nothing in common, since most phyla emerged (and diverged!) about 500 million years ago during the so-called Cambrian explosion. Humans belong to the phylum previously known as vertebrates, while insects belong to the phylum Arthropoda (except in Ryan's book, where they have gotten a phylum all their own). Can one hybridize, say, sperm from a fly and a human egg? Obviously not (except in horror flicks). Yet, Williamson was suggesting that such genetic crosses were possible between at least some phyla of marine organisms.

Sensationally, Williamson did have some experimental backing for his radical idea. He had single-handedly carried out hybridization experiments in his laboratory at the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea, and later convinced an entire team of scientists to carry on with the work. Some of the hybrid embryos, usually crosses between sea urchins (another echinodermate) and sea squirts (a tunicate), developed into larvae. Others developed into a kind of spheroids, creatures nobody had observed before. The spheroids reproduced by budding, a process unknown among both echinodermates and tunicates. Unfortunately, DNA tests on the putative hybrids have so far been non-existent, inconclusive or negative, making it possible that the larvae are really echinodermates that have suppressed the tunicate sperm (some echinodermates can reproduce by a kind of parthenogenesis). The spheroids are harder to explain away, but they could be a previously unknown stage of the echinodermate life cycle (hence another bizarre anomaly to be explained, rather than the sought for explanation).

Undeterred, Williamson has gone even further, suggesting that all or most larvae are “transferred” from other phyla, and that all creatures undergoing complete metamorphosis are hence a kind of chimeras, combining different species into one. This novel evolutionary mechanism is known as “hybridogenesis”. In a famous paper, Williamson proposed that caterpillars are descended from velvet worms, while adult butterflies are real insects, the two combining through hybridization. Margulis was supportive, but most other scientists have so far rejected the idea. Both Williamson and Ryan believes that the Cambrian explosion, when a host of new body plans emerged during a geologically relatively short period, can be explained by hybridogenesis, with enormous mats of eggs and sperm cross-fertilizing in the primordial oceans. The fact that many extinct Cambrian animals look pretty weird, combining traits of several different animal groups, could mean that nature was experimenting wildly back then, and that the basic body plans didn't become fixed until later. The fact that genetic studies reveal genes showing up in all the wrong places on the tree of life could also suggest massive gene transfer in the evolutionary past, either through Margulis' proposed symbiogenesis or through Williamson's hybridogenesis. In Ryan's opinion, while the jury is still out, Williamson's hypothesis is at least plausible, and it's perfectly possible to test. The crucial ingredient lacking is more advanced DNA testing on any “spheroids” or other strange critters that may show up during hybridization experiments.

My prediction is that such test will be made, sooner or later, as Neo-Darwinism quietly leaves the stage, replaced by the Extended Synthesis, making exotic speculations of this kind more legitimate. If the tests will succeed, is (perhaps) another matter. Part of me hope they will fail. I mean, if completely unrelated creatures can hybridize, think of the staggering consequences if Big Business or Big Military-Industrial Complex (or the local dog breeder) gets hold of the research... Nor do I fancy the notion that H G Wells or H P Lovecraft might have been right after all! On the other hand, I do consider hybridogenesis a fascinating idea. Nature is filled with “anomalies” (or things we consider anomalous, due to our narrow theorizing), so whatever the answer will turn out to be, it certainly won't be conventional…

All hail to the lichens!

"Lichens of North America" may be the ultimate tour de force in botanical publishing, and comes with blurbs by Edward O. Wilson, Lynn Margulis and David Ehrenfeld. The lucky authors are Irwin M. Brodo, Sylvia Duran Sharnoff and Stephen Sharnoff.

The book starts off with about 100 pages of general information on lichens, these bizarre double organisms which seem to grow pretty much everywhere in nature. The general chapters are sufficiently popularized to be useful and interesting to the general reader. The rest of this work is a super-encyclopaedia of lichen species found in the United States and Canada, featuring range maps and...wait for it...high quality photos, all in colour?! It has keys, too, and could therefore be used as a field guide. However, I doubt you could bring an 800-page book with you on a field excursion. Try the mini-van!

"Lichens of North America" is a kind of HBW of the lichen world (HBW = Handbook of the Birds of the World). What a shame the lichens themselves can't appreciate it! I admit I was fascinated by the sometimes quite bizarre specimens shown in this volume. And yes, I recognized the reindeer lichens. Some of them grow in Florida?!

Well, what more can I say. All hail to the lichens! Five stars!!!

A poor account of process theology

Perhaps it's a moot point to "diss" a collection of scholarly contributions on process theology and Darwinism, but I really do think that "Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution" is incredibly boring and of relatively little interest. This despite all the luminaries invited: Lynn Margulis, Dorion Sagan (Carl Sagan's son), Francisco Ayala, Philip Clayton, Howard J. Van Till, John F. Haught and (the main star) David Ray Griffin in his previous "occasion of experience" as a leading process theologian (Dave's having other agendas now).

Perhaps a book like this could open the eyes of some really dyed-in-the-wool materialist fanatics, since none of the "religious" contributors are fundamentalists or even straightforward theistic evolutionists á la Simon Conway Morris.

Personally, my eyes were opened already a few years ago, and I want meatier stuff than the process philosophy of Whitehead, Hartshorne and Griffin. The latter is a good writer, and his more "heterodox" variety of process thought is more interesting than the "objectively immortal" version of the other bores, but when the chips are down, I say Griffin's contributions were pretty bland, too. Dorion Sagan's coming out as a pantheist was interesting, but...well, that's just because he's the son of Carl "Cosmos". And why has Francisco Ayala, who seems to be a Neo-Darwinist, been allowed to dominate this collection? His articles are all over the place!

Funniest item: A.Y. Gunter calls Richard Dawkins an "ultra-Darwinist" (Dawkins bows gracefully) and mentions a molecule known as "buckminsterfullerene". For a moment, I thought Gunter was a new Sokal hoax, but apparently there *is* a molecule named after Buckminster Fuller. (Bizarre detail: I always confuse Fuller with Whittaker Chambers. Don't ask me why!)

I will nevertheless give "Back to Darwin" three stars, since (after all) it could be helpful to somebody out there in the Reductionist-Materialist-Ultradarwinist darkness, but I admit that I'll rather read the books mentioned in the notes, than this poor account of process theology...

Neo-Haeckelian protistology

"Handbook of Protoctista" is an extensive, scientific reference work on micro-organisms. Lynn Margulis is one of the editors. The subtitle is rather extensive: "The structure, cultivation, habitats and life histories of the Eukaryotic microorganisms and their descendants exclusive of animals, plants and fungi. A guide to the algae, ciliates, foraminifera, sporozoa, water moulds, slime moulds and the other protoctists".

Why even write a review, with this presentation?

The following statement from the introduction by Lewis Thomas is also worth quoting: "Just a few years back, this book would have seemed to most readers trained in either medicine or biology nothing more than an arcane compendium of nature's most outlandish oddities, queer single cells of primary interest only to the most specialized of specialists". Well, at least he's honest! I suppose doing research on chimpanzees or mountain gorillas is better for your pay check, too. What turned the scientific community to a more pro-protoctistan position isn't entirely clear, but it sounds as if evolutionary theory has something to do with it. Today, Protoctista are regarded as our distant parents. Amen and amen?

When this book was published, about 100,000 species of protoctists were known to science. As behoves a micro-organism, they can be encountered pretty much anywhere. When studying the hypertrophied intestines of an East African rhinoceros, W. Van Hoven discovered a new world of symbiotic eukaryotes using scanning electron microscopy. Meanwhile, a wood-ingesting termite may contain as many as thirty different protist species. No surprise there.

The editors of "Handbook of Protoctista" don't consider their objects of study to be single-celled plants or animals, "anymore than humans are shell-less multicellular amebas". An ironic statement, given the claim that protoctists are our parents. Be that as it may, Lynn Margulis and her colleagues wanted to establish the Protoctista not only as an independent field of study, but also as a "kingdom" in its own right, alongside the "kingdoms" of animals, plants and fungi. They also reject classification schemes of algae based on colour. No more talk about red or green algae, please! At one point, the authors call their approach Neo-Haeckelian protistology.

The rest of the book is an extravagant super-encyclopaedia. The entries are divided into sections dealing with Habitat and Ecology, Characterization and Recognition, Maintenance and Cultivation, Evolutionary History and References. There is also an extensive glossary. The text is heavy, but "Handbook of Protoctista" is probably a must for advanced students who want to walk in the footsteps of Margulis.