Darwinian Evolution Considered As a Phase

LucidBeast tips a mind-bending report at New Scientist on the latest paradigm-breaking work of Carl Woese, one of whose earlier discoveries was the third branch of life on Earth, the Archaea. Woese and physicist Nigel Goldenfeld argue that, even in its sophisticated modern form, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection applies only to a recent phase of life on Earth. Woese and Goldenfeld believe that horizontal evolution led to the rise of the genetic code itself. "At the root of this idea is overwhelming recent evidence for horizontal gene transfer — in which organisms acquire genetic material 'horizontally' from other organisms around them, rather than vertically from their parents or ancestors. The donor organisms may not even be the same species. This mechanism is already known to play a huge role in the evolution of microbial genomes, but its consequences have hardly been explored. According to Woese and Goldenfeld, they are profound, and horizontal gene transfer alters the evolutionary process itself."

Comments

It's still natural selection

[BenBoy]

This really isn't entirely new; Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene is based around the idea that it's individual genes that are selected for, not organisms.

Viruses

[Arancaytar]

Horizontal transfer isn't really over, either - we still have retroviruses.

Re:Here's A Tip, Folks

[Dalambertian]

Here's a protip I've learned from watching the internets and reading your first comment: The moment anyone brings to light something most people have been ignoring, there's always someone who comes along claiming that there's nothing new to see here and that anyone who doesn't know that is clearly misinformed. I'm sorry, but I've never heard of this theory before, and I daresay I'm not the only one. So, please, stop trying to take away my sense of wonder.

Sincerely, the misinformed

darwin didn't know the details? shocking!

[panthroman]

Have Woese and Goldenfeld a brilliant new idea? All they're saying, I think, is that "parent" and "child" are the appropriate units of selection only when genes are passed vertically: from parent to child. They're suggesting that horizontal gene transfer is underrated as a historical evolutionary force.

Agree or not, it hardly undermines Darwin. Genes weren't known in the 19th century. Darwin didn't have a clue about genes, so we're gonna knock him for being "wrong" about it? I mean, was Jesus wrong about genes, too? It's anachronistic silliness.

Science is fundamentally dynamic. Any science that hasn't progressed in 150 years ain't doing too well. (Dear creationists: stop calling us "Darwinists." We've moved on.) I mean, The Origin came out in 1859, for crying out loud! Darwin was more brilliant, more insightful, and rightly more famous than I'll ever be. But if we both had to take a biology test right now, I'd kill him.

Re:Here's A Tip, Folks

[camperdave]

In other words, the tree of life is a banyan tree.

Re:Once again

[Cassius Corodes]

The basic problem is that you don't have infinite time, and as such you have to 'outsource' your knowledge gathering to other people. The problem then becomes one of who do you trust? If you use a heuristic of who has got good results in the past and that leads you to 'blindly' believe in the brand of science - well I can't really find any fault with that. As a researcher, while I know lots about my area, I don't know jack about others so I blindly trust what my doctor, mathematician, physicist tell me. If its an issue of importance I get a second opinion from another doctor etc, but at the end of the day I am blindly trusting them. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.