201213Oct07:28

New The­ory of early ani­mal evo­lu­tion pro­posed that chal­lenges basic assump­tion of evolution

Infor­ma­tion
pub­lished 13 Octo­ber 2012 | mod­i­fied 13 Octo­ber 2012
Archived

Cambrian explosionA New York Med­ical Col­lege sci­en­tist whose life’s work has sup­ported the the­ory of evo­lu­tion has devel­oped a con­cept that dra­mat­i­cally alters one of its basic assump­tions — that sur­vival is based on func­tional advan­tage of a change if it is to per­sist. Stu­art A. New­man, Ph.D., pro­fes­sor of cell biol­ogy and anatomy, offers an alter­na­tive model in propos­ing that the orig­i­na­tion of the struc­tural motifs of ani­mal form were actu­ally pre­dictable and rel­a­tively sud­den, with abrupt mor­pho­log­i­cal trans­for­ma­tions favoured dur­ing the early period of ani­mal evolution.

Newman’s long view of evo­lu­tion is fully explained in his per­spec­tive arti­cle, ‘Physico-​Genetic Deter­mi­nants in the Evo­lu­tion of Devel­op­ment’, which is to be pub­lished in the Octo­ber 12 issue of the jour­nal Sci­ence, in a spe­cial sec­tion called Forces in Development.

Evo­lu­tion is com­monly thought to take place oppor­tunis­ti­cally, by small steps, with each change per­sist­ing, or not, based on its func­tional advan­tage. Newman’s alter­na­tive model is based on recent infer­ences about the genet­ics of the single-​celled ances­tors of the ani­mals and, more sur­pris­ingly, the physics of “middle-​scale” materials.

Ani­mal bod­ies and the embryos that gen­er­ate them exhibit an assort­ment of recur­rent “mor­pho­log­i­cal motifs” which, on the evi­dence of the fos­sil record, first appeared more than a half bil­lion years ago. Dur­ing embry­onic devel­op­ment of present-​day ani­mals, cells arrange them­selves into tis­sues hav­ing non-​mixing lay­ers and inte­rior cav­i­ties. Embryos con­tain pat­terned arrange­ments of cell types with which they may form seg­ments, exoskele­tons and blood ves­sels. Devel­op­ing bod­ies go on to fold, elon­gate, and extend appendages, and in some species, gen­er­ate endoskele­tons with repeat­ing ele­ments (e.g., the human hand).

These devel­op­men­tal motifs are strik­ingly sim­i­lar to the forms assumed by non­liv­ing con­densed, chem­i­cally active, vis­coelas­tic mate­ri­als when they are organ­ised by rel­e­vant phys­i­cal forces and effects, although the mech­a­nisms that gen­er­ate the motifs in liv­ing embryos are typ­i­cally much more com­plex. New­man pro­poses that the ances­tors of the present-​day ani­mals acquired these forms when ancient single-​celled organ­isms came to reside in mul­ti­cel­lu­lar clus­ters and phys­i­cal processes rel­e­vant to mat­ter at this new (for cel­lu­lar life) spa­tial scale were imme­di­ately mobilised.

The uni­cel­lu­lar prog­en­i­tors are believed to have con­tained genes of the “developmental-​genetic toolkit” with which all present-​day ani­mals orches­trate embry­onic devel­op­ment, though they used the genes for single-​cell func­tions. It was pre­cisely these genes whose prod­ucts enabled the ances­tral clus­ters to har­ness the middle-​scale phys­i­cal effects that pro­duced the char­ac­ter­is­tic motifs. And since not every ances­tral clus­ter con­tained the same selec­tion of toolkit genes, dif­fer­ent body forms arose in par­al­lel, giv­ing rise to the mod­ern mor­pho­log­i­cally dis­tinct ani­mal phyla.

Nat­ural selec­tion, act­ing over the hun­dreds of mil­lions of years since the occur­rence of these orig­i­na­tion events led, accord­ing to Newman’s hypoth­e­sis, to more com­plex devel­op­men­tal processes which have made embryo­ge­n­e­sis much less depen­dent on poten­tially incon­sis­tent phys­i­cal deter­mi­nants, although the “phys­i­cal” motifs were retained. As New­man describes in his arti­cle, this new per­spec­tive pro­vides nat­ural inter­pre­ta­tions for puz­zling aspects of the early evo­lu­tion of the ani­mals, includ­ing the “explo­sive” rise of com­plex body forms between 540 and 640 mil­lion years ago and the fail­ure to add new motifs since that time. The model also helps us to under­stand the con­served use of the same set of genes to orches­trate devel­op­ment in all of the mor­pho­log­i­cally diverse phyla, and the “embry­onic hour­glass” of com­par­a­tive devel­op­men­tal biol­ogy: the obser­va­tion that the species of a phy­lum can have dras­ti­cally dif­fer­ent tra­jec­to­ries of early embryo­ge­n­e­sis (e.g., frogs and mice), but still wind up with very sim­i­lar “body plans.”

The above news item is reprinted from mate­ri­als avail­able at New York Med­ical Col­lege via Sci­enceDaily. Orig­i­nal text may be edited for con­tent and length.

(Source: NYMC press release, 11.10.2012; Wikipedia Cam­brian explo­sion)

Goal: 7000 tigers in the wild

Tiger range countries map

Tiger map” (CC BY 2.5) by Sander­son et al., 2006.

about zoos and their mis­sion regard­ing breed­ing endan­gered species, nature con­ser­va­tion, bio­di­ver­sity and edu­ca­tion, which of course relates to the evo­lu­tion of species.
Fol­low me on: