Dear  Soeren and Colleagues,

The symbiogenesis theme (Margulis' endosymbiotic theory) is one of the aspects to reconsider/reenter into the basically evo-info (if I may say) novissima synthesis. Margulis views were received in the 70's and 80's with tremendous hostility from the Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. After a long series of turmoils it was accepted in many realms, particularly in popular science and textbooks industry, and even by the always reluctant Neo-Darwinians. Paradoxically in recent times the bioinformatic and omic research on the origins of eukaryotes has put into question basic tenets of that theory. The "deep sequencing" research on protein families has also be problematic for symbiogenesis. It does not mean that it is wrong, but that it is more complicated than previously thought... That is my opinion at least. In the present discussion, however, there are very knowledgeable parties that can give more specific arguments about that.

Talking about Neo-Darwinians, the paragraph from John Torday that I highlighted (see at the bottom) reminds me strongly from that other from Richard Dawkins' (in The Selfish Gene):


 /“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to
 preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which
 still fills me with astonishment.”/

If we compare both paragraphs, the essential difference relies on information. Torday's unicells develop not really multicell robots, but info agents that collect information about the environment, including the whole elements of the niche (i.e., including in the human case from the "microbiome" to the "sociotype"). And fortunately the emphasis on "selfishness" has disappeared. Perhaps one of the consequences of Margulis work has been ideological, implying some general opening of views. Besides that, we should pay close attention to some "invisible threads" inside/outside those robots, like puppet strings: let me emphasize the enormous evolutionary importance of viruses in eukaryotic origins and evolution, and in epigenetic phenomena. Really masterminding the whole topological/architectural molecular processes.

In any event, for the purpose of the discussion, I bet that the new synthesis, the "novissimima", has to be evo-info... or it won't be!
(spoonful of salt, please)
All the best--Pedro


El 06/01/2018 a las 18:05, Søren Brier escribió:

Dear Pedro

I am wondering why no one seems to think that Lynn Margulis’ theory that cell organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent bacteria is a crucial contribution to cell biology in evolution theory ?

Best wishes

Søren Brier

2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and Life <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/131> *

* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
*Sent:* 5. januar 2018 14:40
*To:* JOHN TORDAY <jtor...@ucla.edu>; fis@listas.unizar.es
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture

head>

Dear John and FIS Colleagues,

Many thanks for this opening text of the NY Lecture. Indeed you have presented us an intricate panorama on one of the most obscure scientific problems of our time: the central theory of biology. As you say, we find with astonishment that there is literally no cell biology in evolution theory. And I would ad that there is no "information biology" either. A central theory becomes sort of a big Hall, where plenty of disciplinary corridors converge and later criss-cross among themselves. Darwinian theory is not that common hall for the really big, big science domain of biology. What are or where are the elements to rebuild the common Hall of the biological domain? I quote from your opening text:

*/"It is as if the unicellular state delegates its progeny to interact with the environment as agents, collecting data to inform the recapitulating unicell of ecological changes that are occurring. Through the acquisition and filtering of epigenetic marks via meiosis, fertilization, and embryogenesis, even on into adulthood, where the endocrine system dictates the length and depth of the stages of the life cycle, now known to be under epigenetic control, the unicell remains in effective synchrony with environmental changes."/*

It is really brilliant: a heads up reversal perspective. I think out of these ideas there are plenty of disciplinary excursions to make. One is "informational", another "topological". Putting together two different algorithmic descriptions and making them to build a torus (i.e., gastrula") as a universal departure for multicellularity also reminds the ideas of Stuart Pivart ("Omnia Ex Torus") about the primordials of multicellularity and the role of mechanical forces in the patterning of developmental processes.

Echoing the ideas discussed in the Royal Society meeting (November 2016), there is a pretty long list of elements to take into account together with epigenetic inheritance (symbiogenesis, viruses and mobile elements, multilevel selection, niche construction, genomic evolution...). As I have suggested above, essential informational ideas are missing too, and this absence of the informational perspective in the ongoing evo discussions is not a good thing.

i any case, it is such a great theme to ponder...

Best wishes to all

--Pedro

  On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 07:15:43 -0800 JOHN TORDAY wrote:

blockquote>

Dear FIS Colleagues, I have attached my New Year Lecture at the invitation of Professor Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez. The content relates a novel perspective on the mechanism of evolution from a cellular-molecular vantage-point. I welcome any and all comments and criticisms in the spirit of sharing ideas openly and constructively. Best Wishes,

John S. Torday PhD

Professor

Evolutionary Medicine

UCLA

/div>



--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to