OUR COMMON ANCESTRY 3.77 BILLION OR MORE YEARS OLD“Tiny&ilamentsandtubesformedbybacteriathatlivedonironwerefoundencasedinquartzlayersintheNuvvuagittuqSupracrustalBelt(NSB),Quebec,Canada.TheNSBcontainssomeoftheoldestsedimentaryrocksknownonEarthwhichlikelyformedpartofaniron-richdeep-seahydrothermalventsystemthatprovidedahabitatforEarth’s&irstlifeformsbetween3,770and4,300millionyearsago.““Priortothisdiscovery,theoldestmicrofossilsreportedwerefoundinWesternAustraliaanddatedat3,460millionyearsoldbutsomescientiststhinktheymightbenon-biologicalartefactsintherocks.”

“Thehaematitestructureshavethesamecharacteristicbranchingofiron-oxidisingbacteriafoundnearotherhydrothermalventstoday...”

We may not know the origin of life, but we can appreciate the antiquity of life and our humble beginnings some 3800 million years ago.

STARTING AND ENDINGWe are too many humans for a finite Earth. Some of us use too many resources and are far too careless about our waste. More and more humans have little or nothing at all. Our population is growing. Let’s start there.

There is very little virgin or unspoiled territory left to exploit. The low hanging fruit is gone. We’re faced with diminishing returns at higher costs. We cannot replace the natural services that we receive free.

Martin Brassier and Lynn Margulis on a walk around Richard Wilkie’s Meadowlark Farm in South Amherst with Menina, Lynn’s dog. Photo: Richard Wilkie

Easy come, easy go. We are surface dwellers. We aren’t going to burrow underground. Floating or submerged cities spring leaks. Blasting off to exoplanets many lifespans away across an unforgiving void is far more of a technological challenge than preserving Earth. We could just slow down. We could simplify.

We should be seeking a shrinking global population. Gardeners know the value of thinning and pruning, but how does that happen when growth is still a sacred cow? Popping out children is most often unskilled labor, unplanned and ill advised. Education and microlending to women have proven to be effective birth control. Natural selection has its own methods for population control: famine, draught, disease, temperature extremes. Or you get eaten by a tiger or flesh eating bacteria. Its all a very nasty business and inevitable given that every sperm is sacred.

Our ideas of economy are no wiser. We want more growth and sustainability. We refuse to choose. There is the delusion of a technological fix or the intercession of a fairy/god/mother who will save our bacon.

Lynn Margulis said to me that we are already living in the ruins of the American Empire. She said that you had to look beyond the uprisings, sectarian violence, the terrorism and barbarity, the streams of refugees willing to risk their lives to reach the promised , but unwelcoming land. You had to look to the bigger picture: beyond deforestation; failed harvests; spreading seas of sand; toxic plumes and pollution; the die-offs of bees, bats and birds; the exhaustion of soils, aquifers and fisheries; the accounting for unaccounted externalities. Beyond the banality of the next business quarter, greed, corruption and self-interest. Beyond our addiction to distractions: the bread and circuses of news, politics, causes, sports and shopping. Slow death by thirst, hunger, a tick bite; we’re all joining the frog in the pot as it ever so slowly comes to a boil.

Save the Planet? No, it is the planet that sustains us. We must Save Ourselves From Ourselves, or natural selection will do it for us.

Global climate change is an enforcer of a higher level of natural selection: extinction. Not a check on fecundity, but a check on complexity, specialization, and efficiency that Martin Brasier called “the Sphinx Within.” The flip side of being the fittest is the inability to change. When there’s nowhere left to run, the inflexibility of fitness proves fatal. Let’s end there.

[From the 2009 Homage to Darwin Debate on Evolution]

Martin Brasier at the Homage to Darwin Debate describing the formineferal ooze covering the floor of the Atlantic Ocean.

Martin Brasier: “Massextinctionsthenrequireustolookattheconnectionswithinasystemandunderstandthoseconnectionsandthedegree,thewayinwhichtheyfeedthroughthesystem.Ifthatmatters,ifconnectionsareimportanttoextinction,andpresumablyconnectionsareimportanttospeciationandspecializationtoobecauseyoucouldarguethatmassextinctionsandspeciationarepartoftheprocess,partofasystemsprocess,whichweoughttoseeinthisbiggerway.“

Richard Dawkins: “Well,Isupposemassextinctionsareverylikelyselective,butaverydifferentkindofselectionfromtheordinaryselectionthatgoesonbetweenmassextinctions.Soamassextinctionismorelikeaone-offevent.InthePermianextinction,mostofthebrachiopodswentextinctandmollusksdidn’t...butit’satotallydifferentkindofselectiveeventfromtheonethatproducesindividualleveladaptationswithinbrachiopodsorwithinmollusks.”

Martin Brasier: “Well,thereisanargumentslightlyagainstthat,whichistheparallelpatternofdistributionofextinctions,whichsuggeststhatmassextinctionsarepartofaparallelspreadsothatthereisasortofcontinuumfromsmallextinctionsthroughmediumtoverylarge.Whichtomesuggeststhatthenatureofthecausesaswiththeexplanationsforavalanches,bigonesandsmallonesarenotcausedbydifferentthings.Soitdoesraisethepossibilitythenthatwedon’thavetolookoutsidethesystem.WhatI’marguingisweneedtolookinsidethesystemandstarttoanalyzesystemstructureandtoextrapolatethatbackthroughtime.”

TO GET THE RIGHT ANSWER, YOU HAVE TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONEvolution is change over time. The name of the course that Lynn Margulis taught

was Environmental Evolution: The effect of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. It was big picture evolution. so its questions were those that had biospheric importance, not just the narrow “How did we get to me?” For the vast majority of life that is bacteria, the already fuzzy concept of species does not apply. Nonetheless, from an anthropocentric (zoocentric) point of view the concept of evolution is very narrow.[Later during the 2009 Homage to Darwin Debate on Evolution]

Richard Dawkins at the Homage to Dawin Debate at Balliol College, Oxford University in 2009.

Denis Noble points out that the odds against the accumulation of random mutations are very long indeed. Atoms in the known universe 1080.

Martin Brasier: “Wehaveraisedthisquestionofwhethersymbiogenesisisimportant,andIjustwanttogiveageobiologist'sviewofwhatisimportantcomparedtowhatmightbeanevolutionarybiologist's.Andwetendtoviewacreatureaccordingtoaspectrumoftheirimpactontheplanet.OK?Soit'snotlikelookingattheenormousdiversityintherainforest,butwhatistheirimpactonthecarboncycleandthebiogeochemicalcycles?Thesearethethingswefocuson.SoI'mgoingtobringthediscussionalittlebitbacktoforaminifera.Andbackin1856whentheyweretryingtolaythe&irsttransatlanticMorsecodecableacrosstheAtlantic,theyhadtolearnaboutwhatthebottomoftheAtlanticwaslike,becausetheyhadnoideahowdeepitwas,iftherewasanylifedownthere.AndCaptainBerrymanoftheUSNavystartedwithaseriesofdeepseatrolls.Hetook12acrosstheAtlantic.Andtheywentdown,ofcourse,tothreeorfourthousandmeters,orwhateveritwas,andtheydiscoveredthesea&loorwasabsolutelycoveredinforaminifera.There'snothingbutthisenormous,greatdepositofchalk,thatHuxleysoevocativelywroteabout.Nearlyallofthatisforaminifera,andnearlyallofthosearesymbiogeneticforaminifera.Thevastbulkofthecalciumcarbonatethatendsupinthedeepseaistheproductofsymbiogeneticevolutionbetweenparticularforams,inthiscase,dino&lagellatesymbionts.Soalthoughitmaynotbequantitativelyimportant,there'sonlyabout40speciesofplanktonicforaminifera,intermsofgeobiologicalimportance,it'sreallyratherasigni&icantthingforustolookat.AndlikeboththecoralreefsandeverythingthatDarwinwassofascinatedby,thecoralsthemselves,whereactinions[sic]cultivatedino&lagellatesandmostofthatwonderfulstarsandthataccumulatesaroundthemisforaminiferalsymbiogenesis.Soimportanceinageobiologicalsenseshouldn'tbedismissedhere.”

Richard Dawkins: Ibetit'svastlyimportant,butit'snot,nothingtodowithspeciation.[andthusoflittleornointerest.]

Evolution itself is also too big and too broad a subject to be tackled by the narrow academic discipline of zoocentric evolutionary biology interested exclusively in speciation. Only in a reductionist view could evolution be limited to speciation.As Ray Noble has observed, “Evolutionistooimportanttoleavetotheevolutionarybiologists.”

Life is a part of the complex Earth system that depends on an inflow of energy and materials from the Sun and the physical environment. As Tyler Volk has pointed out, the environment is a wasteland where the waste of one is the food of others. This recycling and reciprocity between organisms and the environment changes both through time. There are more than enough agents, actions, cycles, systems, interactions and interrelationships to keep a good part of the

Various stages of Dictyostelium discoideum

physical sciences, the life sciences, many naturalists and others busy for the foreseeable future.

We design designed things. We are intelligent designers. If there is design in nature, there must be an Intelligent Designer. This is the view of those who believe in an Intelligent Designer. But the logic works even better another way around: we design designed things. We are part of nature. Therefore nature itself is the designer. The big stumbling block for ID proponents is that they don’t believe that the rest of nature, apart from humans, is intelligent.

Taking this Copernican step away from ourselves as the model for Intelligent Design is as big as the discovery that the heavens do not revolve around us. We are not the metric or model for life or gods. A much better biospheric case can be made for bacteria being represen-tative of life: they have been around since the beginning; they are the primary producers on which all other life depends; they make up 99% of the biota on the planet; they define the limits of the biosphere; and they are immortal. They have the best tools as we will see.

We also know that they “quorum sense”, but we have no idea what the limits are of their cognition. Is a bacterium an individual, a cell in a colony, or one cell in a global dispersed life form, somewhat akin to the protoctist cells of the slime net Labyrinthula marina or the slime mold Dictystellium discordum.

ALL AROUND US (AND ON US, AND IN US)

The darling of biotech is CRISPR ‘technology.’ Featured in the April 15, 2017 issue of Science News

Marine slime net Labyrinthula marina has cells that travel within tubes using actin and myocin.

“Itisthedazzlingstarofthebiotechworld:apowerfulnewtoolthatcandeftlyandpreciselyalterthestructureofDNA.Itpromisescuresfordiseases,sturdiercrops,malaria-resistantmosquitoesandmore.Frenzyoverthetechnique — knownasCRISPR/Cas9 — isinfullswing.”

Further along in the article, the truth comes out about our dazzling star. “Butthereisalesssequins-and-glittersidetoCRISPR...ThebiologybehindCRISPRtechnologycomesfromabattlethathasbeenragingforeons,outofsightandyetallaroundus(andonus,andinus).TheCRISPReditingtoolhasitsoriginsinmicrobes—bacteriaandarchaea...”

Its all sequins-and-glitter when CRISPR is our powerful new tool . A technology with which we can deftly and precisely alter the structure of DNA, but it’s a more wrong-side-of-the-tracks story when its revealed that CRISPR is a number of similar processes we’ve borrowed from bacteria—that live in obscene numbers in snot. Our dazzling star is really booger biotech. The same is true for most of biotech, it is us expropriating what bacteria have been doing for eons without us.

“Thecheapest,simplest,mosteffectivewayofmanipulatingDNAeverknown,CRISPRmaywellgiveusthecuretoHIV,geneticdiseases,andsomecancers,andwillhelpaddresstheworld’shungercrisis.YeteventhetiniestchangestoDNAcouldhavemyriad,unforeseeableconsequences...”

The promotion for the new book “A Crack in Creation” sounds familiar. The genome turned out not to be the “Book of Life.” Now we have the tool known as CRISPR/Cas9, to edit the “Code.” How much of the power “to control evolution” is overstatement? How much is unthinkable and how much is unthinking? As for blowback, it seems reasonable to ask if we humans learn from our mistakes or do we keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?

“Doudnasharesthethrillingstoryofherdiscovery,andpassionatelyarguesthatenormousresponsibilitycomeswiththeabilitytorewritethecodeoflife.”

Doctor Frankenstein “creating life” in the lab.

Are Genes Selfish? Is Natural Selection Bad? RevisitedDuring the Homage to Darwin debate on Evolution, Lynn Margulis asked how a gene, regardless of definition, could be thought of as selfish when it had no self. She was pointing out another danger of being anthropocentric: the use of terms that, according to Margulis, are simply “inappropriatefortheanalysis.”

In 2013, Toby Tyrrell, a professor of Earth system science at the National Oceano-graphy Centre, University of Southampton in the UK published On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth. Tyrrell based most of his critique of Gaia on neo-Darwinist arguments that had been trotted out years before by Richard Dawkins and Ford Doolittle. Tyrrell maintained his strongest argument against Gaia theory was nitrogen starvation, the lack of fixed nitrogen. He reasoned that if Gaia regulated Earth to favor life, there should be plenty of fixed nitrogen to go around and no organisms would die. Unwittingly, his argument seems based in the anthropocentric notion that death is bad. Unfortunately, when you take Tyrrell’s best argument to its logical conclusion, it makes natural selection bad. Of course, from a scientific point of view, natural selection is simply the inevitable result of the boundary conditions for existence within the biosphere. ‘Bad’ or ‘good’ are anthropocentric judgements that have nothing to do with a critical scientific investigation of the relationship between life and Earth. For a professor of Earth systems science, Tyrrell has authored a tract based in outmoded Modern Synthetic arguments with a typically large dose of anthropocentrism rather than a systems argument that recognizes biological relativity.

“What a Difference Humans Make. In a time–lapse movie of the history of Earth, all the action takes place in the final split second.”

- David Christian, www.bighistoryproject.com

David Christian’s statement about Big History’s view of the Earth history is breathtakingly anthropocentric. This statement is no longer the headline on the www.bighistoryproject.com but examples of anthropocentricity abound. Big History expert, Jonathan Markley, hosts a 3-part documentary on CuriosityStream that promises to

A crowd of 75,000 at the Boston March for Science. The sign says, “Resistance”

provide “captivating insight into the links between astronomy, deep time geologic events and human civilization.” Most astonishing is the claim that “Each 50-minute episode dives deep into how physics, geology, biology and chemistry—forces as far back as the formation of our planet—have influenced world history as much as our own innovations, political decisions or battlefield victories.” [emphasis added] Big History is still burdened by misinformation from neo-Darwinism: its zoocentric models, its anthropocentric language, its unbalanced reductionism andits anachronistic Plant/Animal taxonomy. The series spends less than 8 minutes to get us from the Big Bang to the human civilization in Mesopotamia. The origin of life is assumed to be bacteria, but otherwise bacteria play no role. Metabolism is mentioned once in the development of photosynthesis by algae and plants. Biomineralization is not mentioned. Abiotic forces are credited with theaggregation of ores. The Cambrian Explosion is identified as the beginning of multi-cellularity rather than the fossil record of animal hard parts. The land is first colonized by plants which are credited with being Earth’s primary producers. The rest of the biota is only mentioned in connection with beasts of burden, flocks and crops. Humans “get going” around 10,000 years ago. Migrations from southern Africa to Eurasia and Australia from 60,000 to 40,000 years ago are absent.

SYMBIOTIC EARTH SCREENINGSOn April 23rd, Hummingbird Films had a successful preview screening in Columbia County, New York, hosted by the Hawthorne Valley Association. It was very well attended and well received. Many people commented on how important and thought provoking the film is. Symbiotic Earth explores the life and ideas of Lynn Margulis, a brilliant and radical scientist, whose unconventional theories challenge the male-dominated scientific community and are today fundamentally changing how we look at ourselves, evolution, medicine and the environment. Moving forward, Hummingbird Films is still seeking financial support for finishing and distribution costs and appreciates your tax deductible donation made through their fiscal sponsor Global Film Network.

Symbiotic Earth: How Lynn Margulis rocked the boat and started a scientific revolution. When:  Saturday, June 24, 2017 from 2:00 pm to 5:30 pmWhere: UMass Amherst, Integrative Learning Center, Room N151, 650 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01003

Panel discussion at the end of the screening at the Hawthrone School in Austerlititz, NY

The film is two and a half hours long and will be followed by a moderated discussion. The filmmakers will be present. If you plan to attend, please RSVP by emailing Symbiotic Earth producer Susan Davies. THE MODERN SYNTHESIS: THERE’S NO THEORY THERE TO REPLACEThe joint meeting of the Royal Society and the British Academy of Science, New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives was a rematch of sorts. The two sides had already exchanged views in a 2014 Nature Comment, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.”The Nature Comment had been set up as point and counterpoint. Kevin Laland and colleagues, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka argued the point, “Yes, urgently. Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes.”

Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra, Douglas J. Futuyma, Richard E. Lenski, Trudy F. C. Mackay, Dolph Schluter, Joan E. Strassmann argued the counterpoint, “No, all is well. Theory [Modern Synthesis] accommodates evidence through relentless synthesis.“

What struck me about both the meeting and the Comment was the fact that the proponents of a “constantly synthesizing” version of the Modern Synthesis had failed to present a statement of their theory. This was not a minor detail, but such a glaring omission that I wondered how the editors of Nature had allowed what was going to be debated to remain completely undefined. I wrote to Wray and Hoekstr on February 25, 2017:

Dear Professors Wray and Hoekstra,Lynn Rothschild from NASA just brought your 2014 Nature counterpoint to my attention.  I noted that Douglas Futuyma is acknowledged at the end of your counterpoint.  I was in attendance at the Royal Society meeting on New Trends in Evolution this past November and Prof. Futuyma made pretty much the same case at that meeting.

In both your counterpoint and in Douglas Futuyma’s presentation at the Royal Society there is the same glaring omission: there is no definition of the “theory” that you claim has been relentlessly synthesized for 60 years.  The statement of the Modern Synthesis as it was originally formulated and even definitions following the discovery of molecular structure of DNA are relatively easy to find and most of us would agree on definitions, but you and Douglas Futuyma are championing a theory that is far from those formulations, yet precisely how this new Modern Synthesis would be stated is missing.

Could you provide such a definition?

Sincerely,James MacAllister

On March 27, 2017, I received this reply from Greg Wray:

Dear James,Thanks for your note.

In the 2014 Nature piece, our use of the word “theory” was not intended to be specific but rather to refer to the body of theories, formalisms, models, and hypotheses that are in active discussion by the community of evolutionary biologists. It isn’t “a” theory, but rather an amalgam of ideas, some of which are tightly integrated and some of which are not, some of which are derivatives of the Modern Synthesis and some of which are not. As such, there is no way (or need) to define what that theory is.

I can’t speak directly for Doug or Hopi, but I’m not interested in championing any specific theory. The best way to support a theory is not to publish opinion pieces but to gather evidence that it provides predictive power. The point of the Nature piece was not to argue for a specific theory but rather to make the point that evolutionary biology as a discipline is (contrary to some claims) intellectually healthy and indeed, this is an exceptionally fertile, exciting, and fast-moving time for the field.

Best,Greg

While Greg Wray was speaking only for himself, his admission that “our use of the word ‘theory’ was not intended to be specific” [emphasis added] is quite astounding given that one of the questions considered highly controversial surrounding the joint RS-BA meeting was whether or not a new theory should replace the Modern Synthesis. It seems that the Modern Synthesis is acknowledged by Wray to now be insufficient as a theory to explain all of the processes at work in evolution. Read more...

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY FILMS’ ONLINE FOR A YEARThanks to the preservation effort of Lynn Margulis the 76 films of the National Science Foundation’s Developmental Biology Films celebrate their first anniversary of being available online through their official UMass channel. Here is a sample.

Caulerpa is a single celled alga that grows to 3 meters. According to the film’s narration:“Perhapstheprinciplesexplainingthedevelopmentofshapeinmultinucleatealgaeandinthehigherplants,aswell,maybeexploredmorereadilyinthisorganismwherethephenomenaaredisplayedinsuchadramaticandaccessibleway.”

The films have enjoyed a wide audience with the top two films being Budding of Yeast Cells with 14,584 views (or nearly 40 views per day) and Experiments on the Chick Embryo:Tools and Techniques with 13,466 (or nearly 37 views per day).

THE BLUE-GREEN ALGAE, PROTOZOA, GUT FLORA AND FLAGELLABiology is full of anachonisms. Why call the eukaryotic motility organelles and the spinning “oars” of bacteria by the same name. They bear no resemblance to each other, so why call them both flagella—other than to confuse people and students? Here are the questions and answers to the quiz in January 2017 EnvEvo newsletter.

1. How many proteins are there in a bacterial flagellum compared to aeukaryotic flagellum? Answer: bacteria = one, flagellin; eukaryotes = 600+

2. What size is the cross section of a bacterial flagellum compared to aeukaryotic flagellum? Answer: bacterial 0.16 µm; eukaryotic 2.5 µm

3. What moves the bacterial flagellum compared to a eukaryotic flagellum?Answer bacterial flagellum moved with a rotary motor; eukaryotic flagellum is moved by an arrangement of 9(2)+2 microtubules.

4. What is the motion of the bacterial flagellum compared to a eukaryoticflagellum? Answer: bacteria flagella are spun; eukaryote’s undulipodia undulate.

DNA IS LIKE A BUNDT PANAlone the Bundt pan does nothing, but with a baker, a recipe, ingredients, a mixing bowl, a beater and a preheated oven it becomes the shaper of the Bundt cake. Its part of the system, but it is no more or less important to the cake then the other parts.

Margulis slide comparing flagellum to undullipium

Experiments on the Chick EmbryoThe Budding of Yeast Cells