Metabolic Hierarchies challenges Neo-Darwinism


Neo-Darwinism is the theory of evolution that proposes that natural selection is the primary mechanism by which new species evolve. Natural selection is the process by which organisms with traits that are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those traits to their offspring.

The evolution of metabolic hierarchies challenges Neo-Darwinism in many ways. First, it shows that evolution can be constrained by the architecture of the underlying metabolic network. This means that not all possible metabolic hierarchies are equally evolvable. Second, it shows that the evolution of metabolic hierarchies can be rapid, even in the presence of competition. This suggests that evolution can be driven by factors other than natural selection.

Overall, the evolution of metabolic hierarchies suggests that evolution is a more complex process than Neo-Darwinism suggests. It is a process that is constrained by the underlying biology of organisms, but it is also a process that can be driven by a variety of factors other than natural selection.

Here are 10 ways in which the evolution of metabolic hierarchies challenges Neodarwinism:

  1. Metabolic hierarchies are complex and integrated systems. Neodarwinism is based on the idea that evolution is driven by the selection of individual genes, but metabolic hierarchies are not easily reducible to individual genes. Instead, they are complex systems that emerge from the interactions of many different genes and proteins. This makes it difficult to explain the evolution of metabolic hierarchies using traditional Neodarwinian theory.

  2. Metabolic hierarchies are highly canalized. This means that they are resistant to change, even in the presence of strong selection pressure. This is because metabolic hierarchies are often tightly integrated with other systems in the cell, such as the cell cycle and gene expression. As a result, changes to one part of the metabolic hierarchy can have unintended consequences for other parts of the cell. This makes it difficult to explain how new metabolic hierarchies could evolve through random mutations and selection.

  3. Metabolic hierarchies are often non-adaptive. This means that they are not necessarily the result of natural selection. Instead, they may be the product of other evolutionary forces, such as genetic drift or historical contingency. This is because metabolic hierarchies are often complex and integrated systems, and it is difficult to imagine how natural selection could have optimized them for all possible environments.

  4. Metabolic hierarchies can evolve through symbiosis. This means that they can arise through the cooperation of two or more different organisms. For example, the mitochondria in our cells evolved from symbiotic bacteria. This challenges the Neodarwinian view that evolution is driven by competition between individuals and gradual mutations.

  5. Metabolic hierarchies can evolve through epigenetics. This means that they can change without any changes to the underlying DNA sequence. This is because epigenetic factors, such as DNA methylation and histone modification, can regulate gene expression. This challenges the Neodarwinian view that evolution is driven by changes to the DNA sequence.

  6. Metabolic hierarchies are often non-random. This means that they are not simply the result of random mutations. Instead, they are often patterned and predictable. This suggests that there are underlying constraints that shape the evolution of metabolic hierarchies. These constraints may be due to the laws of physics or chemistry, or they may be due to the historical contingency of life.

  7. Metabolic hierarchies are often self-organizing. This means that they can emerge spontaneously from a disordered state. This is because metabolic hierarchies are often based on thermodynamic principles, such as the minimization of free energy. This challenges the Neodarwinian view that evolution is driven by random mutations and selection.

  8. Metabolic hierarchies are often hierarchical. This means that they are organized into different levels of complexity. For example, the Krebs cycle is a metabolic pathway that consists of a series of interconnected chemical reactions. Each reaction is catalyzed by a different enzyme, and the enzymes are organized into a hierarchy. This challenges the Neodarwinian view that evolution is driven by the selection of individual genes.

  9. Metabolic hierarchies are often modular. This means that they are made up of distinct modules that can be rearranged or replaced. For example, the metabolic pathways of different organisms can be rearranged to produce different products. This challenges the Neodarwinian view that evolution is driven by the selection of individual genes.

  10. Metabolic hierarchies are often evolving. This means that they are constantly changing in response to environmental challenges. For example, the metabolic pathways of bacteria can evolve to resist antibiotics. This challenges the Neodarwinian view that evolution is a slow and gradual process.

Overall, the evolution of metabolic hierarchies challenges Neodarwinism in a number of ways. Metabolic hierarchies are complex, integrated systems that are often non-adaptive and non-random. They can evolve through symbiosis, epigenetics, and self-organization. They are often hierarchical and modular, and they are constantly evolving. These observations suggest that Neodarwinism needs to be updated or better replaced to take into account the complexity and dynamics of metabolic hierarchies.

The evolution of metabolic hierarchies is one area where Neodarwinism falls short.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more