150 Years of the Mass Action Law

This year we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the law of mass action. This law is often assumed to have been “there” forever, but it has its own history, background, and a definite starting point. The law has had an impact on chemistry, biochemistry, biomathematics, and systems biology that is difficult to overestimate. It is easily recognized that it is the direct basis for computational enzyme kinetics, ecological systems models, and models for the spread of diseases. The article reviews the explicit and implicit role of the law of mass action in systems biology and reveals how the original, more general formulation of the law emerged one hundred years later ab initio as a very general, canonical representation of biological processes.     

Mathematics, structuralism and biology

A new approach is gaining ground in biology, one that has much in common with the structuralist tradition in other fields. It is very much in the spirit of an earlier view of biology and indeed of science in general. It is also, though this is not generally recognized, in the spirit of twentieth century physics. As in modern physics, however, it is not a question of ignoring all the progress that has been made within the former paradigm. On the contrary, the aim is to use it as a basis for setting out in a somewhat different direction. Complex phenomena do not generally lend themselves to reductionist analyses which seek explanation only in terms of detailed mechanisms, but a proper scientific discussion of structure must make full use of what we have already learned - by whatever means - about the processes that underly the phenomena we are trying to understand.     

The 'atom-splitting' moment of synthetic biology. Nuclear physics and synthetic biology share common features

Synthetic biology and nuclear physics share many commonalities in terms of public perception and funding. Synthetic biologists could learn valuable lessons from the history of the atomic bomb and nuclear power.On 16 July 1945, in the desert of New Mexico, the first nuclear bomb was exploded. It was a crucial moment in the history of the physical sciences—proof positive of the immense forces at work in the heart of atoms—and inevitably changed the world. In 2010, a team at the J. Craig Venter Research Institute in the USA first created artificial life by inserting a synthetic 1.08 megabase pair genome into a mycoplasma cell that lacked its own. They demonstrated that this new cell with its man-made genome was capable of surviving and reproducing [1]. It was a colossal achievement for biology, and its significance might well rank alongside the detonation of the first atomic bomb in terms of scientific advance.…as with post-war physics, synthetic biology''s promises of a brighter future might not all materialize and could have far-reaching effects on society, science and politicsThere are several similarities between twentieth century physics, and twentieth and twenty-first century biology. The nuclear explosion in New Mexico was the result of decades of research and the first splitting of an atom in Otto Hahn''s laboratory in 1938. It ushered in an era of new ideas and hopes for a brighter future built on the power of the atom, but the terrible potential of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear warfare ultimately overshadowed these hopes and changed the course of science and politics. The crucial achievement of synthetic life is a strikingly similar event; the culmination of decades of research that started with its own atom-splitting moment: recombinant DNA technology. It promises to bring forth a new era for biology and enable a huge variety of applications for industry, medicine and the military. However, as with post-war physics, synthetic biology''s promises of a brighter future might not all materialize and could have far-reaching effects on society, science and politics. Biology should therefore take note of the consequences of nuclear physics'' iconic event in 1945 for science, politics and society.To appreciate the similarities of these breakthroughs and their consequences for society, it is necessary to understand the historical perspective. The pivotal discoveries for both disciplines were related to fundamental elements of nature. The rise of nuclear physics can be traced back to the discovery of neutrons by James Chadwick in 1932 [2]. Neutrons are essential to the stability of atoms as they insulate the nucleus against the repulsive forces of its positively charged protons. However, the addition of an extra neutron can destabilize the nucleus and cause it to split, releasing more neutrons and a tremendous amount of energy. This nuclear fission reaction was first described by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938. Leo Szilard realized the possibility of using the neutrons released from the fission of heavy atoms to trigger a nuclear chain reaction to release huge quantities of energy. The first successful chain reactions took place in 1942 in Germany at Leipzig University in the laboratory of Robert Döpel, and in the USA at the University of Chicago in the so-called Chicago Pile-1 reactor, developed by Enrico Fermi. These first nuclear reactors provided the proof of concept for using a nuclear chain reaction as a source of energy. However, even before that, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard wrote to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, suggesting that the US government should develop a new powerful bomb based on nuclear fission. President Roosevelt created the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb in 1945.Similarly to nuclear physics, the advent of rDNA technology has concerned the public…The Cold War and the mutually assured nuclear destruction between the USA and the USSR fanned widespread fears about a nuclear Third World War that could wipe out human civilization; Robert Oppenheimer, one of the physicists who developed the atomic bomb, was actually among the first to warn of the spectre of nuclear war. By contrast, the civilian use of nuclear physics, mainly in the form of nuclear reactors, promised a brave new future based on harnessing the power of the atom, but it also generated increasing concerns about the harmful effects of radioactivity, the festering problems of nuclear waste and the safety of nuclear power plants. The nuclear disasters at the Chernobyl reactor in 1986 and the Fukushima power plant in 2011 heightened these concerns to the point that several nations might now abandon nuclear energy altogether.The fundamental discovery in biology, crucial to the creation of synthetic organisms was the double helix structure of DNA in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson [3]. The realization that DNA molecules have a universal chemical structure to store and pass on genetic information was the intellectual basis for the development of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology and genetic engineering. Twenty years after this discovery, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer first transferred DNA from one organism into another by using endonucleases and DNA ligases [4]. This early toolkit was later expanded to include DNA sequencing and synthesizing technologies as well as PCR, which culminated in the creation of the first artificial organism in 2010. Craig Venter''s team synthesized a complete bacterial chromosome from scratch and transferred it into a bacterial cell lacking a genome: the resulting cell was able to synthesize a new set of proteins and to replicate. This proof of concept experiment now enables scientists to pursue further challenges, such as creating organisms with fully designed genomes to achieve agro-biotechnological, commercial, medical and military goals.Similarly to nuclear physics, the advent of rDNA technology has concerned the public, as many fear that genetically modified bacteria could escape the laboratory and wreak havoc, or that the technology could be abused to create biological weapons. Unlike with nuclear physics, the scientists working on rDNA technology anticipated these concerns very early on. In 1974, a group of scientists led by Paul Berg decided to suspend research into rDNA technology to discuss possible hazards and regulation. This discussion took place at a meeting in Asilomar, California, in 1975 [5].A pertinent similarity between these two areas of science is the confluence of several disciplines to create a hybrid technoscience, in which the boundaries between science and technology have become transient [6]. This convergence was vital for the success of both nuclear physics and later synthetic biology, which combines biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technologies and other new fields that have been created along the way [7]. In physics, technoscience received massive support from the government when the military potential of nuclear fission was realized. Although the splitting of the atom took place before the Manhattan Project, the Second World War served as a catalyst to combine research in nuclear physics with organized and goal-directed funding. As most of this funding came from the government, it changed the relationship between politics and research, as scientists were employed to meet specific goals. In the wake of the detonation of the first atomic bombs, the post-war period was another watershed moment for politics, technoscience, industry and society as it generated new and more intimate relationships between science and governments. These included the appointment of a scientific advisor to the President of the USA, the creation of funding organizations such as the National Science Foundation, or research organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and large amounts of federal funding for technoscience research at private and public universities. It also led to the formation of international organizations such as the civilian-controlled International Atomic Energy Agency [6].There is no global war to serve as a catalyst for government spending on synthetic biology. Although the research has benefited tremendously from government agencies and research infrastructure, the funding for Venter''s team largely came from the private sector. In this regard, the relationship between biological techno-science and industry might already be more advanced than with the public sector given the enormous potential of synthetic life for industrial, medical and environmental applications.Research and innovation at universities has always played a vital role in the success of industry-based capitalism [8]; technoscience is now the major determinant of a knowledge-based economy or ''technocapitalism'' [9]. At the heart of technocapitalism are private and public organizations, driven by research and innovation, which are in sharp contrast to industrial capitalism, where the factories were production-driven and research was of less importance [10]. Furthermore, synthetic biology might provide valuable resources to the scientific community and thereby generate new research opportunities and directions for many biological fields [11].However, given the far-reaching implications of creating synthetic life and the risk of abuse, it is probable that the future relationship between synthetic biology and government will include issues of national security. In the light of potential misuse of synthetic biology for bioterrorism, and the safety risks involved in commercial applications, synthetic biology will eventually require some government regulation and oversight. In contrast to nuclear physics, in which the International Atomic Energy Commission was established only after the atomic bomb, the synthetic biology community should hold a new Asilomar meeting to address concerns and formulate guidelines and management protocols, rather than waiting for politicians or commercial enterprises to regulate the field.So far, synthetic biology differs from nuclear physics in terms of handling information. The Manhattan Project inevitably created a need for secrecy as it was created at the height of the Second World War, but the research maintained this shroud of secrecy after the war. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the US government released carefully compiled documents to the American public. The existence of useable nuclear power had been secret until then, and the control of information ensured that the public further supported or tolerated the technology of nuclear fission and the subsequent use of atomic bombs [12]. This initially positive view changed in the ensuing decades with the threat of a global nuclear war.…synthetic biology has side-stepped the mistakes of nuclear physics and might well achieve a more balanced public integration of future developmentsInformation management in synthetic biology differs from nuclear physics, in that most of the crucial breakthroughs are immediately published in peer-reviewed journals and covered by the media. The value of early public discourse on science issues is evident from the reaction towards genetically modified crops and stem cell research. In this regard, synthetic biology has side-stepped the mistakes of nuclear physics and might well achieve a more balanced public integration of future developments.The main issues that might threaten to dampen public support for synthetic biology and favourable public perception are ethics and biosecurity concerns. Ethical concerns have already been addressed in several forums between scientists and public interest groups; this early engagement between science and society and their continuing dialogue might help to address the public''s ethical objections. In terms of biosecurity, biology might learn from nuclear physics'' intimate entanglement with politics and the military. Synthetic biologists should maintain control and regulation of their research and avoid the fate of nuclear physicists, who were recruited to fight the Cold War and were not free to pursue their own research. For synthetic biology to stay independent of government, industry and society, it must capitalize on its public engagement and heed the lessons and mistakes of nuclear physics'' atom-splitting moment. It should not just evaluate, discuss and address the risks for human or environmental health or biosafety concerns, but should also evaluate potential risks to synthetic biology research itself that could either come from falling public acceptance or government intrusion.? Open in a separate windowAlex J ValentineOpen in a separate windowAleysia KleinertOpen in a separate windowJerome Verdier     

Brain and Mind

In the last few years great progress has been made in many fields of knowledge. Technology has moved forward with rapid strides, and with the appearance of self-regulating systems it has moved to a new stage. Significant progress has been achieved in physics and biology; new branches of medicine have been formulated and are being developed; and substantial changes have also been noted in a sphere of particular relevance and importance for each of us, in psychology, the science of man's mental life and the laws of his behavior.     

Quantum biology at the cellular level—Elements of the research program

Quantum biology is emerging as a new field at the intersection between fundamental physics and biology, promising novel insights into the nature and origin of biological order. We discuss several elements of QBCL (quantum biology at cellular level) – a research program designed to extend the reach of quantum concepts to higher than molecular levels of biological organization. We propose a new general way to address the issue of environmentally induced decoherence and macroscopic superpositions in biological systems, emphasizing the ‘basis-dependent’ nature of these concepts. We introduce the notion of ‘formal superposition’ and distinguish it from that of Schroedinger's cat (i.e., a superposition of macroscopically distinct states). Whereas the latter notion presents a genuine foundational problem, the former one contradicts neither common sense nor observation, and may be used to describe cellular ‘decision-making’ and adaptation. We stress that the interpretation of the notion of ‘formal superposition’ should involve non-classical correlations between molecular events in a cell. Further, we describe how better understanding of the physics of Life can shed new light on the mechanism driving evolutionary adaptation (viz., ‘Basis-Dependent Selection’, BDS). Experimental tests of BDS and the potential role of synthetic biology in closing the ‘evolvability mechanism’ loophole are also discussed.     

Extended physics as a theoretical framework for systems biology?

In this essay we examine whether a theoretical and conceptual framework for systems biology could be built from the [Bailly and Longo, 2008] and [Bailly and Longo, 2009] proposal. These authors aim to understand life as a coherent critical structure, and propose to develop an extended physical approach of evolution, as a diffusion of biomass in a space of complexity. Their attempt leads to a simple mathematical reconstruction of Gould’s assumption (1989) concerning the bacterial world as a “left wall of least complexity” that we will examine. Extended physical systems are characterized by their constructive properties. Time is acting and new properties emerge by their history that can open the list of their initial properties. This conceptual and theoretical framework is nothing more than a philosophical assumption, but as such it provides a new and exciting approach concerning the evolution of life, and the transition between physics and biology.     

No evolution,no heredity,just development—Julius Schaxel and the end of the Evo–Devo agenda in Jena, 1906–1933: a case study

Julius Schaxel is an almost forgotten figure in the history of early twentieth century biology. By focusing on his life and work, I would like to illustrate several central developments in that period of history of biology. Julius Schaxel was an early representative and organizer of theoretical biology, discussing and criticizing both Wilhelm Roux’s mechanism and Hans Driesch’s vitalism. In addition to his theoretical work, Schaxel also did experimental research on developmental issues to support his critique. In this paper, special emphasis is made on the negotiating practice of Schaxel, which he used to establish a new area of biological research and a new audience for that area. In contrast to these new fields, Schaxel can be also portrayed as the endpoint of a research tradition investigating ontogeny and phylogeny together, which today is called Evo–Devo. Following Garland Allen’s dialectical processes that led to the decline of the Evo–Devo research agenda, Schaxel’s example is used to investigate these processes.     

The genius of Wilhelm Hofmeister: the origin of causal-analytical research in plant development

Friederich Wilhelm Benedikt Hofmeister (1824-1877) stands as one of the true giants in the history of biology and belongs in the same pantheon as Darwin and Mendel. Yet by comparison, he is virtually unknown. If he is known at all, it is for his early work on flowering plant embryology and his ground-breaking discovery of the alternation of generations in plants, which he published at age 27 in 1851. Remarkable as the latter study was, it was but a prelude to the more fundamental contributions he was to make in the study of plant growth and development expressed in his books on plant cell biology (Die Lehre von der Pfanzenzelle, 1867) and plant morphology (Allgemeine Morphologie der Gewächse, 1868). In this article we review his remarkable life and career, highlighting the fact that his scientific accomplishments were based largely on self-education in all areas of biology, physics, and chemistry. We describe his research accomplishments, including his early embryological studies and their influence on Mendel's genetic studies as well as his elucidation of the alternation of generations, and we review in detail his cell biology and morphology books. It is in the latter two works that Hofmeister the experimentalist and biophysicist is most manifest. Not only did Hofmeister explore the mechanisms of cytoplasmic streaming, plant morphogenesis, and the effects of gravity and light on their development, but in each instance he developed a biophysical model to integrate and interpret his wealth of observational and experimental data. Because of the lack of attention to the cell and morphology books, Hofmeister's true genius has not been recognized. After studying several evaluations of Hofmeister by contemporary and later workers, we conclude that his reputation became eclipsed because he was so far ahead of his contemporaries that no one could understand or appreciate his work. In addition, his basically organismic framework was out of step with the more reductionistic cytogenetic work that later came in vogue. We suggest that the translation of the cell and morphology books in English would help re-establish him as one of the most notable scientists in the history of plant biology.     

Early 20th-century research at the interfaces of genetics, development, and evolution: reflections on progress and dead ends

Three early 20th-century attempts at unifying separate areas of biology, in particular development, genetics, physiology, and evolution, are compared in regard to their success and fruitfulness for further research: Jacques Loeb's reductionist project of unifying approaches by physico-chemical explanations; Richard Goldschmidt's anti-reductionist attempts to unify by integration; and Sewall Wright's combination of reductionist research and vision of hierarchical genetic systems. Loeb's program, demanding that all aspects of biology, including evolution, be studied by the methods of the experimental sciences, proved highly successful and indispensible for higher level investigations, even though evolutionary change and properties of biological systems up to now cannot be fully explained on the molecular level alone. Goldschmidt has been appraised as pioneer of physiological and developmental genetics and of a new evolutionary synthesis which transcended neo-Darwinism. However, this study concludes that his anti-reductionist attempts to integrate genetics, development and evolution have to be regarded as failures or dead ends. His grand speculations were based on the one hand on concepts and experimental systems that were too vague in order to stimulate further research, and on the other on experiments which in their core parts turned out not to be reproducible. In contrast, Sewall Wright, apart from being one of the architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s, opened up new paths of testable quantitative developmental genetic investigations. He placed his research within a framework of logical reasoning, which resulted in the farsighted speculation that examinations of biological systems should be related to the regulation of hierarchical genetic subsystems, possibly providing a mechanism for development and evolution. I argue that his suggestion of basing the study of systems on clearly defined properties of the components has proved superior to Goldschmidt's approach of studying systems as a whole, and that attempts to integrate different fields at a too early stage may prove futile or worse.     

Evolution and development: Past, present, and future

The paper tries to set right certain ideas about the history of evolutionary developmental biology. The main point is, that we had to enface the dominance of a comparative approach towards evolutionary developmental biology before 1900, which even later on was effective in Russia, for example, till the 1930s. The problem of the experimentalist approach set against this tradition was and is that there is no concept of gestalt that may allow to integrate the former comparative views and the modern mechanistic interpretations. We argue, that it would be wrong just to describe the comparative tradition as being outdated, as it may allow to get the framework for a dynamical concept of Gestalt that may integrate the ideas of morphogenesis and pattern formation worked out in evo-devo recently.     

《伯杰氏鉴定细菌学手册》和“伯杰氏国际系统微生物学学会”历史回顾、发展现状及未来展望

2023年是《伯杰氏鉴定细菌学手册》出版一百周年。《伯杰氏鉴定细菌学手册》的诞生，旨在建立起原核微生物分类的明确标准，开启对原核微生物分类学探索的使命。随着生物学、物理学、化学、分子生物学、生物信息学及其相关研究技术的发展及学科交叉，微生物分类学逐渐发展为以系统发育和多相分类为基础、研究微生物物种进化与生物学特性和物种间相关性的学科，因此新发现的微生物物种及其生物学特征信息增加迅猛，该手册在2015年改名为《伯杰氏古菌与细菌系统学手册》，并采用了电子版，使得更新快捷，为原核微生物系统分类学领域注入新的生机和活力。《伯杰氏鉴定细菌学手册》是微生物系统分类学的经典之作，为微生物学者提供微生物物种分类信息的同时，也在引领该领域的学者探索更为广阔的微生物世界。“伯杰氏国际系统微生物学学会”于2009年成立，旨在促进国际微生物领域的学术交流，推动原核微生物系统分类学的发展。本综述全面回顾了《伯杰氏鉴定细菌学手册》和“伯杰氏国际系统微生物学学会”的发展历史及最新进展，并对其未来发展方向进行了展望。     

Between history and physics

Biology has traditionally occupied a middle ground between the determinism of classical physics and the uncertainties of history. These issues are analyzed with respect to statistical laws which are applied to the prebiotic domain and strategy laws which characterize evolutionary biology. The differences in approach between biology and physics are discussed in detail. The origin of life is discussed in the context of physical chemical laws. A scenario for biogenesis is presented in terms of known molecular hardware. Evolutionary biology is then examined with respect to the kinds of laws that are possible in a domain where thermal fluctuations (mutations) have macroscopic effects. Game theory is employed to demonstrate the kinds of theory appropriate to this historical domain. The transition point between physics and history is the origin and development of the code. This is discussed and it is concluded that we are not yet able to assign the code to either the deterministic domain or to the arena of history.     

The geometrization of biology

The twentieth century has witnessed a geometrization of physics, that is, a reduction of the basic concepts of physics to geometric concepts. The topological approach to biology, recently proposed and to some extent developed by the author, is a small step in the direction of geometrization of biology, but is unable to achieve the main purpose of such a geometrization of biology, namely, the reduction to geometric concepts of such purely biological concepts as ingestion, digestion, assimilation, etc. To achieve this purpose we must find geometric structures or spaces, in which different geometric properties stand to each other in the same formal logical relation, as the different concepts of biology stand to each other. If this were possible, then a set of geometric theorems could be “translated” by an appropriate “glossary” into a set of biological laws. While not offering a solution to this problem, the present paper illustrates the possibility of such an approach on several examples. Certain new types of topological spaces are introduced, which are used for illustration purposes only. It is shown, however, how from a theorem about such spaces a verifiable biological prediction could be made, if these spaces were to be taken seriously. A possible application to biology of E. Artin's theory of braids is outlined.     

Prospects of nanoparticle–DNA binding and its implications in medical biotechnology

Bio-nanotechnology is a new interdisciplinary R&D area that integrates engineering and physical science with biology through the development of multifunctional devices and systems, focusing biology inspired processes or their applications, in particular in medical biotechnology. DNA based nanotechnology, in many ways, has been one of the most intensively studied fields in recent years that involves the use and the creation of bio-inspired materials and their technologies for highly selective biosensing, nanoarchitecture engineering and nanoelectronics. Increasing researches have been offered to a fundamental understanding how the interactions between the nanoparticles and DNA molecules could alter DNA molecular structure and its biochemical activities. This minor review describes the mechanisms of the nanoparticle–DNA binding and molecular interactions. We present recent discoveries and research progresses how the nanoparticle–DNA binding could vary DNA molecular structure, DNA detection, and gene therapy. We report a few case studies associated with the application of the nanoparticle–DNA binding devices in medical detection and biotechnology. The potential impacts of the nanoparticles via DNA binding on toxicity of the microorganisms are briefly discussed. The nanoparticle–DNA interactions and their impact on molecular and microbial functionalities have only drown attention in recent a few years. The information presented in this review can provide useful references for further studies on biomedical science and technology.     

Scientific natural history: a key base to ecology

Like all science, ecology depends upon an observational and experimental base. This is 'scientific natural history': it is a tradition particularly strong in Britain, where it is nurtured and stimulated in local and national natural history societies. Ecology in Britain sprang directly from natural history, in contrast to its origins in other countries from physiology. It is argued that a healthy ecology depends on a nourishing knowledge of field biology.     

The excitability of plant cells: With a special emphasis on characean internodal cells

This review describes the basic principles of electrophysiology using the generation of an action potential in characean internodal cells as a pedagogical tool. Electrophysiology has proven to be a powerful tool in understanding animal physiology and development, yet it has been virtually neglected in the study of plant physiology and development. This review is, in essence, a written account of my personal journey over the past five years to understand the basic principles of electrophysiology so that I can apply them to the study of plant physiology and development. My formal background is in classical botany and cell biology. I have learned electrophysiology by reading many books on physics written for the lay person and by talking informally with many patient biophysicists. I have written this review for the botanist who is unfamiliar with the basics of membrane biology but would like to know that she or he can become familiar with the latest information without much effort. I also wrote it for the neurophysiologist who is proficient in membrane biology but knows little about plant biology (but may want to teach one lecture on “plant action potentials”). And lastly, I wrote this for people interested in the history of science and how the studies of electrical and chemical communication in physiology and development progressed in the botanical and zoological disciplines.     

Origin and Evolution of the Brain

Modern biology has not yet come to terms with the presence of many organic codes in Nature, despite the fact that we can prove their existence. As a result, it has not yet accepted the idea that the great events of macroevolution were associated with the origin of new organic codes, despite the fact that this is the most parsimonious and logical explanation of those events. This is probably due to the fact that the existence of organic codes in all fundamental processes of life, and in all major transitions in the history of life, has enormous theoretical implications. It requires nothing less than a new theoretical framework, and that kind of change is inevitably slow. There are too many facts to reconsider, too many bits of history to weave together in a new mosaic. But this is what science is about, and the purpose of the present paper is to show that it can be done. More precisely, it is shown that the whole natural history of the brain can be revisited in the light of the organic codes. What is described here is only a bird’s-eye view of brain macroevolution, but it is hoped that the extraordinary potential of the organic codes can nevertheless come through. The paper contains also another message. The organic codes prove that life is based on semiosis, and are in fact the components of organic semiosis, the first and the most diffused form of semiosis on Earth, but not the only one. It will be shown that the evolution of the brain was accompanied by the development of two new types of sign processes. More precisely, it gave origin first to interpretive semiosis, mostly in vertebrates, and then to cultural semiosis, in our species.     

Time: The Biggest Pattern in Natural History Research

We distinguish between four cosmological transitions in the history of Western intellectual thought, and focus on how these cosmologies differentially define matter, space and time. We demonstrate that how time is conceptualized significantly impacts a cosmology’s notion on causality, and hone in on how time is conceptualized differentially in modern physics and evolutionary biology. The former conflates time with space into a single space–time continuum and focuses instead on the movement of matter, while the evolutionary sciences have a tradition to understand time as a given when they cartography how organisms change across generations over or in time, thereby proving the phenomenon of evolution. The gap becomes more fundamental when we take into account that phenomena studied by chrono-biologists demonstrate that numerous organisms, including humans, have evolved a “sense” of time. And micro-evolutionary/genetic, meso-evolutionary/developmental and macro-evolutionary phenomena including speciation and extinction not only occur by different evolutionary modes and at different rates, they are also timely phenomena that follow different periodicities. This article focusses on delineating the problem by finding its historical roots. We conclude that though time might be an obsolete concept for the physical sciences, it is crucial for the evolutionary sciences where evolution is defined as the change that biological individuals undergo in/over or through time.