DO WE NEED AN EXTENDED EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS?

The Modern Synthesis (MS) is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology. It was actually built by expanding on the conceptual foundations laid out by its predecessors, Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. For sometime now there has been talk of a new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), and this article begins to outline why we may need such an extension, and how it may come about. As philosopher Karl Popper has noticed, the current evolutionary theory is a theory of genes, and we still lack a theory of forms. The field began, in fact, as a theory of forms in Darwin's days, and the major goal that an EES will aim for is a unification of our theories of genes and of forms. This may be achieved through an organic grafting of novel concepts onto the foundational structure of the MS, particularly evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetic inheritance, complexity theory, and the theory of evolution in highly dimensional adaptive landscapes.     

Law of the Minimum Paradoxes

The “Law of the Minimum” states that growth is controlled by the scarcest resource (limiting factor). This concept was originally applied to plant or crop growth (Justus von Liebig, 1840, Salisbury, Plant physiology, 4th edn., Wadsworth, Belmont, 1992) and quantitatively supported by many experiments. Some generalizations based on more complicated “dose-response” curves were proposed. Violations of this law in natural and experimental ecosystems were also reported. We study models of adaptation in ensembles of similar organisms under load of environmental factors and prove that violation of Liebig’s law follows from adaptation effects. If the fitness of an organism in a fixed environment satisfies the Law of the Minimum then adaptation equalizes the pressure of essential factors and, therefore, acts against the Liebig’s law. This is the the Law of the Minimum paradox: if for a randomly chosen pair “organism–environment” the Law of the Minimum typically holds, then in a well-adapted system, we have to expect violations of this law.     

Civic Biology and the Origin of the School Antievolution Movement

In discussing the origins of the antievolution movement in American high schools within the framework of science and religion, much is overlooked about the influence of educational trends in shaping this phenomenon. This was especially true in the years before the 1925 Scopes trial, the beginnings of the school antievolution movement. There was no sudden realization in the 1920’s – sixty years after the Origin of Species was published – that Darwinism conflicted with the Bible, but until evolution was being taught in the high schools, there was no impetus to outlaw it. The creation of “civic biology” curricula in the late 1910’s and early 20’s, spearheaded by a close-knit community of textbook authors, brought evolution into the high school classroom as part of a complete reshaping of “biology” as a school subject. It also incorporated progressive ideologies about the purposes of compulsory public education in shaping society, and civic biology was fundamentally focused on the applications of the life sciences to human life. Antievolution legislation was part of a broader response to the ideologies of the new biology field, and was a reaction not only to the content of the new subject, but to the increasingly centralized control and regulation of education. Viewing the early school antievolution movement through the science-religion conflict is an artifact of the Scopes trial’s re-creation of its origins. What largely caused support for␣the school antievolution movement in the South and particularly Tennessee were concerns over public education, which biology came to epitomize.     

Texas Biology and Biological Anthropology Faculty Express Their Views on Teaching Evolution

Unsurprisingly, survey results indicate that Texas biology and biological anthropology faculty with expertise in an evolutionary area strongly support teaching “just evolution” (100%; N = 54) and not creationism/intelligent design. Importantly, they do not think that religious faith is incompatible with acceptance of evolutionary biology (91%; N = 55), even though 50% (N = 52) describe themselves as “not at all religious.” As school boards nationwide debate science standards, it is important that faculty with relevant expertise have a voice. Biological anthropologists should not be overlooked as a public resource in these debates.     

Critical notice:<Emphasis Type="Italic"> Darwinian reductionism</Emphasis>

This notice provides a critical discussion of some of the issues from Alex Rosenberg’s Darwinian Reductionism, in particular proper functions and the relationship of proximate and ultimate biology, developmental programs and genocentrism, biological laws, the principle of natural selection as a fundamental law, genetic determinism, and the definition of “reductionism.”     

On the Semio-Mathematical Nature of Codes

The relational structure of RNA, DNA, and protein bears an interesting similarity to the determination problem in category theory. In this paper, we present this deep-structure similarity and use it as a springboard for discussing some abstract properties of coding in various systems. These abstract properties, in turn, may shed light on the evolution of the DNA world from a semiotic perspective. According to the perspective adopted in this paper, living systems are not information processing systems but “meaning-making” systems. Therefore, what flows in the genetic system is not “information” but “value.” We define meaning, meaning-making, and value and then use these terms to explain the abstract dynamics of coding, which can illuminate many forms of sign-mediated activities in biosystems.     

Two neo-Darwinisms

There are two extant theories of evolution, each of which deserves the honourific "neo-Darwinism": Modern Synthesis Replicator theory and a theory I shall call Developmental Darwinism. The principal difference concerns the canonical unit of biological organization. Modern Synthesis replicator theory explains the process of evolution by appeal to the activities of genes or replicators. Developmental Darwinism explains the process of evolution by appeal to the capacities of organisms. In particular, it is the plasticity of organisms, manifested most distinctly during development, that causes adaptive evolution. Despite the fact that each, in its own way, traces its origin to the theory outlined by Darwin, they are radically different. The objectives of this essay are twofold: to underscore the differences between these theories, and to argue that Developmental Darwinism, though nascent, is a viable alternative to Modern Synthesis replicator theory.     

The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life

The propagation of misconceptions about the theory of biological evolution must be addressed whenever and wherever they are encountered. The recent article by Paz-y-Mino and Espinoza in this journal contained several such misconceptions, including: that biological evolution explains the origin of life, confusion between biological and cosmological evolution, and the use of the term “Darwinism,” all of which we address here. We argue that science educators, and biology educators particularly, must be aware of these (and other) misconceptions and work to remove them from their classrooms.     

Iota-carrageenan from a newly farmed, rare variety of eucheumoid seaweed—“endong”

A seaweed with the local name “endong” is a rare eucheumoid variety that has recently been farmed in Tawi-Tawi, southern Philippines. Local farmers describe it as “eel-like” because of its long, slender and smooth thalli. Being somewhat similar in appearance to the dominantly farmed seaweed “tambalang” (Kappaphycus alvarezii var. tambalangii), farmers mix their harvests of “endong” with those of “tambalang”. We analyzed the hydrocolloid extract from “endong” using spectroscopic and chemical techniques. The extract’s infrared and nuclear magnetic resonance (¹H and ¹³C) spectra, and sulfate and 3,6-anhydrogalactose contents revealed carrageenan of the iota-type, similar to extracts from another farmed species, Eucheuma denticulatum. This result implies that “endong” carrageenan exhibits physico-chemical properties different from those of kappa-carrageenan of “tambalang”. The findings of this study are of significance to the seaweed industry, as carrageenan quality problems could potentially arise from a mixed harvest. Seaweed farmers are advised to separate their harvests of “endong” and “tambalang”. Presented at the 19th International Seaweed Symposium, Kobe, Japan     

The roots of Evo-Devo in Russia: Is there a characteristic “Russian Tradition”?

This paper raises the general question of whether there are any national peculiarities that characterize the scientific and philosophical roots of Russian-language evolutionary developmental biology. The researchers and theories are surveyed which, with hindsight, have been crucial for the Russian tradition when it comes to general methodological principles and constituting concepts. Based on published works and archival documents the main concepts of the “founding fathers” of the Russian tradition with their “Western analogues” are compared. The focus is on A. O. Kowalevsky (1840–1901), I. I. Metschnikov (1945–1916), A. N. Sewertzoff (1866–1936), I. I. Schmalhausen (1884–1963) and the parallelisms between them and E. Haeckel (1834–1919), V. Franz (1883–1950), and C. H. Waddington (1905–1977). In addition, the problem of specific influences constituting the Russian-language context of the Modern Synthesis is addressed. The major thesis of this paper is that the very character of the Russian developmental biology and its intellectual environment predisposed a strong bias towards environmentalist interpretations and thus anticipated what we now call “ecological developmental biology”. This paper is an extended version of my talk delivered to the First and founding meeting of the European Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology (EDD), 16–19 August (Prague, Czech Republic). I thank Scott Gilbert for inviting me to this meeting

---

Problems with the current deinococcal hypothesis: an alternative theory

All theories related to the evolution of Deinococcus radiodurans have a common denominator: the strong positive correlation between ionizing-radiation resistance and desiccation tolerance. Currently, the widespread hypothesis is that D. radiodurans’ ionizing-radiation resistance is a consequence of this organism’s adaptation to desiccation (desiccation adaptation hypothesis). Here, we draw attention to major discrepancy that has emerged between the “desiccation adaptation hypothesis” and recent findings in computational biology, experimental research, and terrestrial subsurface surveys. We explain why the alternative hypothesis, suggesting that D. radiodurans’ desiccation tolerance could be a consequence of this organism’s adaptation to ionizing radiation (radiation adaptation hypothesis), should be considered on equal basis with the “desiccation adaptation hypothesis”.     

A relational theory of biological systems II

The general Theory of Categories is applied to the study of the (M, R)-systems previously defined. A set of axioms is provided which characterize “abstract (M, R)-systems”, defined in terms of the Theory of Categories. It is shown that the replication of the repair components of these systems may be accounted for in a natural way within this framework, thereby obviating the need for anad hoc postulation of a replication mechanism. A time-lag structure is introduced into these abstract (M, R)-systems. In order to apply this structure to a discussion of the “morphology” of these systems, it is necessary to make certain assumptions which relate the morphology to the time lags. By so doing, a system of abstract biology is in effect constructed. In particular, a formulation of a general Principle of Optimal Design is proposed for these systems. It is shown under what conditions the repair mechanism of the system will be localized into a spherical region, suggestive of the nuclear arrangements in cells. The possibility of placing an abstract (M, R)-system into optimal form in more than one way is then investigated, and a necessary and sufficient condition for this occurrence is obtained. Some further implications of the above assumptions are then discussed.     

Polymorphism of canonical and noncanonical <Emphasis Type="Italic">gypsy</Emphasis> sequences in different species of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Drosophila </Emphasis><Emphasis Type="Italic">melanogaster</Emphasis> subgroup: possible evolutionary relations

Mobile genetic elements constitute a substantial part of eukaryotic genome and play an important role in its organization and functioning. Co-evolution of retrotransposons and their hosts resulted in the establishment of control systems employing mechanisms of RNA interference that seem to be impossible to evade. However, “active” copies of endogenous retrovirus gypsy escape cellular control in some cases, while its evolutionary elder “inactive” variants do not. To clarify the evolutionary relationship between “active” and “inactive” gypsy we combined two approaches: the analysis of gypsy sequences, isolated from G32 Drosophila melanogaster strain and from different Drosophila species of the melanogaster subgroup, as well as the study of databases, available on the Internet. No signs of “intermediate” (between “active” and “inactive”) gypsy form were found in GenBank, and four full-size G32 gypsy copies demonstrated a convergence that presumably involves gene conversion. No “active” gypsy were revealed among PCR generated gypsy ORF3 sequences from the various Drosophila species indicating that “active” gypsy appeared in some population of D. melanogaster and then started to spread out. Analysis of sequences flanking gypsy variants in G32 revealed their predominantly heterochromatic location. Discrepancy between the structure of actual gypsy sites in G32 and corresponding sequences in database might indicate significant inter-strain heterochromatin diversity. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

pH-Induced Molten Globule State of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Rhizopus niveus</Emphasis> Lipase is More Resistant Against Thermal and Chemical Denaturation Than Its Native State

Here, we have characterized four pH-dependent states: alkaline state, “B” (pH 9.0), native state, “N” (pH 7.4), acid-induced state, “A” (pH 2.2) and molten globule state, “MG” (pH 1.8) of Rhizopus niveus lipase (RNL) by CD, tryptophanyl fluorescence, ANS binding, DLS, and enzyme activity assay. This “MG” state lacks catalytic activity and tertiary structure but it has native-like significant secondary structure. The “R _h” of all the four states of RNL obtained from DLS study suggests that the molecular compactness of the protein increases as the pH of solution decreases. Kinetic analysis of RNL shows that it has maximum catalytic efficiency at state “B” which is 15-fold higher than state “N.” The CD and tryptophanyl fluorescence studies of RNL on GuHCl and temperature-induced unfolding reveal that the “MG” state is more stable than the other states. The DSC endotherms of RNL obtained at pH 9.0, 7.4, and 2.2 were with two transitions, while at pH 1.8 it showed only a single transition.     

Physics,biology and sociology: II. Suggestion for a synthesis

In continuation of previous studies (Bull. Math. Biophysics,28, 283–308; 655–661, 1966;29, 139–152, 1967) it is shown that the difference between the “metric” aspects of physics and the “relational” aspects of biological and social sciences disappear by accepting the broader definition of “relation”, such as that given in mathematics and logic. A conceptual superstructure then becomes possible from which all three branches of knowledge may be derived, though none of them can be derived from the others.     

The Preface to Darwin’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Origin of Species</Emphasis>: The Curious History of the “Historical Sketch” *

Almost any modern reader’s first encounter with Darwin’s writing is likely to be the “Historical Sketch,” inserted by Darwin as a preface to an early edition of the Origin of Species, and having since then appeared as the preface to every edition after the second English edition. The Sketch was intended by him to serve as a short “history of opinion” on the species question before he presented his own theory in the Origin proper. But the provenance of the “Historical Sketch” is somewhat obscure. Some things are known about its production, such as when it first appeared and what changes were made to it between its first appearance in 1860 and its final form, for the fourth English edition, in 1866. But how it evolved in Darwin’s mind, why he wrote it at all, and what he thought he was accomplishing by prefacing it to the Origin remain questions that have not been carefully addressed in the scholarly literature on Darwin. I attempt to show that Darwin’s various statements about the “Historical Sketch,” made primarily to several of his correspondents between 1856 and 1860, are somewhat in conflict with one another, thus making problematic a satisfactory interpretation of how, when, and why the Sketch came to be. I also suggest some probable resolutions to the several difficulties. How Darwin came to settle on the title “Historical Sketch” for the Preface to the Origin is not certain, but a guess may be ventured. When he first submitted the text to Asa Gray in February 1860 he called it simply “Preface Contributed by the Author to this American Edition” (Burkhardt et al., eds., vol. 8, 1993, p. 572; the collected correspondence is hereafter cited as CCD). In fact he had thought of it as being properly called a Preface much earlier, perhaps as early as 1856, as will be seen in what follows. It came to be called “An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species” only in the third English edition, April 1861. This is the title it retained thereafter, with the exception of an addition to the title in the sixth English edition, “Previously to the Publication of the First Edition of this Work” (Peckham, 1959, pp. 20, 59). The word “sketch,” on the other hand was one of two words Darwin commonly used in private correspondence to refer to the book that would later become the Origin, the other word being “Abstract,” and both signifying that Darwin thought of the work as being a resume rather than a full-fledged study (e.g., letter to J.D. Hooker, May 9 1856, CCD vol. 6 p. 106; letter to Baden Powell January 18 1860, CCD vol. 8 p. 41; letter to Lyell 25 June 1858, CCD v. 7, 1991, pp. 117–8; letter to Lyell May 1856, CCD, v. 6 p. 100). The most likely source of the title “Historical Sketch” for Darwin’s Preface is Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology in which, beginning with the third edition (1834), Lyell added titles to his chapters, calling chapters 2–4 “Historical Sketch of the Progress of Geology” (Secord, in Lyell [1997], p. xlvii; for other uses by Lyell of this expression, cf. Porter, 1976, p. 95; idem 1982, p. 38; and Lyell, 1830 [1990], p. 30). Further parallels between Lyell’s Introduction and Darwin’s “Historical Sketch” in terms of content and strategy are suggested below.     

Two types of using of space in the resident common shrews <Emphasis Type="Italic">Sorex araneus</Emphasis> L.

The home range of resident animals is considered as “familiar area” including a “foraging area.” It has been revealed that the activity of an average animal unit in the “foraging area” could be approximated by normal distribution. Estimation of activity distribution in the “familiar area” (beyond the “foraging area”) was impeded by means of marking since it might be difficult to record distant movements, and the method does not provide an essential body of data. In the case of the common shrew Sorex araneus, the “familiar area” was estimated using pitfall as animals evade them in the known areal. The “foraging area” radius of the average shrew was taken to be 30 m (95% of the animal unit activity), the radius of “familiar area” was within the range of 180–240 m. The “foraging area” was expected to provide the animal with vital resources, and the “familiar area” reflects its need for exploratory activity.     

Of Mice and Men: Evolution and the Socialist Utopia. William Morris,H.G. Wells,and George Bernard Shaw

During the British socialist revival of the 1880s competing theories of evolution were central to disagreements about strategy for social change. In News from Nowhere (1891), William Morris had portrayed socialism as the result of Lamarckian processes, and imagined a non-Malthusian future. H.G. Wells, an enthusiastic admirer of Morris in the early days of the movement, became disillusioned as a result of the Malthusianism he learnt from Huxley and his subsequent rejection of Lamarckism in light of Weismann’s experiments on mice. This brought him into conflict with his fellow Fabian, George Bernard Shaw, who rejected neo-Darwinism in favour of a Lamarckian conception of change he called “creative evolution.”