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
