Daily Archives: June 19, 2016

Cloning = Cruelty | Compassion in World Farming

Posted: June 19, 2016 at 2:37 pm

The case against cloning

The aim of cloning farm animals is to produce replicas of the animals with the highest economic value, for example the fastest-growing pigs or the highest-yielding dairy cows. However the process of cloning itself causes animal suffering and the animals with the highest economic value are prone to developing severe health problems pushed to their physical limits, they are condemned to a lifetime of suffering.

The Cloning = Cruelty campaign highlights the intrinsic animal welfare issues of selective breeding in animals for food i.e. meat and dairy. Research also shows that many cloned farm animals are born with deformed organs and live short and miserable lives.

The first cloned Boer goat of east China's Anhui Province dies beside its mother. Xinhua News Agency

The cloning of farm animals can involve great suffering. A cloned embryo has to be implanted into a surrogate mother who carries it to birth. Cloned embryos tend to be large and can result in painful births that are often carried out by Caesarean section. Many clones die during pregnancy or birth. Of those that survive, a significant proportion die in the early days and weeks of life from problems such as heart, liver and kidney failure.

On 8th September MEPs will take a vote on whether to ban the cloning of farm animals in Europe. Please send a message to your MEPs to ask that they vote in support of a ban on cloning. The future of farm animals in Europe may depend on it.

Compassion will continue, with its European partners, to fight the introduction of cloning animals for food.

Read the original post:

Cloning = Cruelty | Compassion in World Farming

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off on Cloning = Cruelty | Compassion in World Farming

Cloning – Scratch Wiki

Posted: at 2:37 pm

Cloning is a feature that allows a sprite to create a clone, or semi-duplicate, of itself, while the project is running. This can be useful in tower defense games, for example, for a wave of objects. Clones of a sprite will be the same as the original, or parent sprite, but as a separate instance. Clones inherit the parent's scripts, costumes, sounds, and properties, but can then be modified. There is a limit of 300 clones per project to prevent excessive lagging or crashes,[1] but 301 can be made.

In Scratch 2.0, there are three blocks related to cloning. All can be found in the Control palette.

This block will clone the sprite it runs in. Its version in the Scratch Day 2011 prealpha had no dropdown insert to select a sprite.

It is also possible to clone other clones recursively.

This Hat Block activates when a clone is created. It only runs in the newly created clone, not previous clones or the parent.

This Cap Block will delete the clone it runs in.

Not to be confused with cloning, sprites can be duplicated by two methods:

This will make the new sprite appear in the new sprites area with all of the same costumes, scripts, and sounds.

Variables for all sprites will be the same for each clone, but variables for this sprite only will be different for each clone.

There are two different types of cloning implemented in different Scratch modifications. They are commonly referred to as "Panther-style cloning", and "BYOB-style cloning".

In Panther-style cloning, a clone inherits its parent's properties, but is only a clone of it, not a new sprite. Other sprites can sense the clones, using the Touching ()? block, with the parent as its argument. The code for Panther-style cloning was actually implemented in Scratch 1.4, hinting that it was a planned feature, but wasn't added. Scratch 2.0 uses this style of cloning.

In BYOB-style cloning, a clone is a new sprite in the sprite list, with editable data all of its own. Clones are created with an Operators block "(clone)", which clones a sprite and reports a reference to it, which can then be used to control it.

Read the original:

Cloning - Scratch Wiki

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off on Cloning – Scratch Wiki

The Ethics of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research …

Posted: at 2:37 pm

"California Cloning: A Dialogue on State Regulation" was convened October 12, 2001, by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Its purpose was to bring together experts from the fields of science, religion, ethics, and law to discuss how the state of California should proceed in regulating human cloning and stem cell research.

A framework for discussing the issue was provided by Center Director of Biotechnology and Health Care Ethics Margaret McLean, who also serves on the California State Advisory Committee on Human Cloning. In 1997, the California legislature declared a "five year moratorium on cloning of an entire human being" and requested that "a panel of representatives from the fields of medicine, religion, biotechnology, genetics, law, bioethics and the general public" be established to evaluate the "medical, ethical and social implications" of human cloning (SB 1344). This 12-member Advisory Committee on Human Cloning convened five public meetings, each focusing on a particular aspect of human cloning: e.g., reproductive cloning, and cloning technology and stem cells. The committee is drafting a report to the legislature that is due on December 31, 2001. The report will discuss the science of cloning, and the ethical and legal considerations of applications of cloning technology. It will also set out recommendations to the legislature regarding regulation of human cloning. The legislature plans to take up this discussion after January. The moratorium expires the end of 2002.

What should the state do at that point? More than 80 invited guests came to SCU for "California Cloning" to engage in a dialogue on that question. These included scientists, theologians, businesspeople from the biotechnology industry, bioethicists, legal scholars, representatives of non-profits, and SCU faculty. Keynote Speaker Ursula Goodenough, professor of biology at Washington University and author of Genetics, set the issues in context with her talk, "A Religious Naturalist Thinks About Bioethics." Four panels addressed the specific scientific, religious, ethical, and legal implications of human reproductive cloning and stem cell research. This document gives a brief summary of the issues as they were raised by the four panels.

Science and Biotechnology Perspectives

Thomas Okarma, CEO of Geron Corp., launched this panel with an overview of regenerative medicine and distinguished between reproductive cloning and human embryonic stem cell research. He helped the audience understand the science behind the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research, with an explanation of the procedures for creating stem cell lines and the relationship of this field to telomere biology and genetics. No brief summary could do justice to the science. The reader is referred to the report of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/stemcell.pdf) for a good introduction.

Responding to Okarma, were J. William Langston, president of the Parkinsons Institute, and Phyllis Gardner, associate professor of medicine and former dean for medical education at Stanford University. Both discussed the implications of the presidents recent restrictions on stem cell research for the non-profit sector. Langston compared the current regulatory environment to the Reagan era ban on fetal cell research, which he believed was a serious setback for Parkinsons research. He also pointed out that stem cell research was only being proposed using the thousands of embryos that were already being created in the process of fertility treatments. These would ultimately be disposed of in any event, he said, arguing that it would be better to allow them to serve some function rather than be destroyed. President Bush has confined federally-funded research to the 64 existing stem cell lines, far too few in Langstons view. In addition, Langston opposed bans on government funding for stem cell research because of the opportunities for public review afforded by the process of securing government grants.

Gardner talked about the differences between academic and commercial research, suggesting that both were important for the advancement of science and its application. Since most of the current stem cell lines are in the commercial sector and the president has banned the creation of new lines, she worried that universities would not continue to be centers of research in this important area. That, she argued, would cut out the more serendipitous and sometimes more altruistic approaches of academic research. Also, it might lead to more of the brain drain represented by the recent move of prominent UCSF stem cell researcher Roger Pedersen to Britain. Gardner expressed a hope that the United States would continue to be the "flagship" in stem cell research. Her concerns were echoed later by moderator Allen Hammond, SCU law professor, who urged the state, which has been at the forefront of stem cell research to consider the economic impact of banning such activity. All three panelists commended the decision of the state advisory committee to deal separately with the issues of human cloning and stem cell research.

Religious Perspectives

Two religion panelists, Suzanne Holland and Laurie Zoloth, are co editors of The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics and Public Policy (MIT Press, 2001). Holland, assistant professor of Religious and Social Ethics at the University of Puget Sound, began the panel with a discussion of Protestant ideas about the sin of pride and respect for persons and how these apply to human reproductive cloning. Given current safety concerns about cloning, she was in favor of a continuing ban. But ultimately, she argued, cloning should be regulated rather than banned outright. In fact, she suggested, the entire fertility industry requires more regulation. As a basis for such regulation, she proposed assessing the motivation of those who want to use the technology. Those whose motives arise from benevolence--for example, those who want to raise a child but have no other means of bearing a genetically related baby--should be allowed to undergo a cloning procedure. Those whose motives arise more from narcissistic considerations -- people who want immortality or novelty -- should be prohibited from using the technology. She proposed mandatory counseling and a waiting period as a means of assessing motivation.

Zoloth reached a different conclusion about reproductive cloning based on her reading of Jewish sources. She argued that the availability of such technology would make human life too easily commodified, putting the emphasis more on achieving a copy of the self than on the crucial parental act of creating "a stranger to whom you would give your life." She put the cloning issue in the context of a system where foster children cannot find homes and where universal health care is not available for babies who have already been born. While Zoloth reported that Jewish ethicists vary considerably in their views about reproductive cloning, there is fairly broad agreement that stem cell research is justified. Among the Jewish traditions she cited were:

The embryo does not have the status of a human person.

There is a commandment to heal.

Great latitude is permitted for learning.

The world is uncompleted and requires human participation to become whole.

Catholic bioethicist Albert Jonsen, one of the deans of the field, gave a historical perspective on the cloning debate, citing a paper by Joshua Lederburg in the 1960s, which challenged his collea
gues to look at the implications of the then-remote possibility. He also traced the development of Catholic views on other new medical technologies. When organ transplantation was first introduced, it was opposed as a violation of the principal, "First, do no harm" and as a mutilation of the human body. Later, the issue was reconceived in terms of charity and concern for others. One of the key questions, Jonsen suggested, is What can we, as a society that promotes religious pluralism, do when we must make public policy on issues where religious traditions may disagree. He argued that beneath the particular teachings of each religion are certain broad themes they share, which might provide a framework for the debate. These include human finitude, human fallibility, human dignity, and compassion.

Ethics Perspectives

Lawrence Nelson, adjunct associate professor of philosophy at SCU, opened the ethics panel with a discussion of the moral status of the human embryo. Confining his remarks to viable, extracorporeal embryos (embryos created for fertility treatments that were never implanted), Nelson argued that these beings do have some moral status--albeit it weak--because they are alive and because they are valued to varying degrees by other moral agents. This status does entitle the embryo to some protection. In Nelsons view, the gamete sources whose egg and sperm created these embryos have a unique connection to them and should have exclusive control over their disposition. If the gamete sources agree, Nelson believes the embryos can be used for research if they are treated respectfully. Some manifestations of respect might be:

They are used only if the goal of the research cannot be obtained by other methods.

The embryos have not reached gastrulation (prior to 14 to 18 days of development).

Those who use them avoid considering or treating them as property.

Their destruction is accompanied by some sense of loss or sorrow.

Philosophy Professor Barbara MacKinnon (University of San Francisco), editor of Human Cloning: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy, began by discussing the distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning and the slippery slope argument. She distinguished three different forms of this argument and showed that for each, pursuing stem cell research will not inevitably lead to human reproductive cloning. MacKinnon favored a continuing ban on the latter, citing safety concerns. Regarding therapeutic cloning and stem cell research, she criticized consequentialist views such as that anything can be done to reduce human suffering and that certain embryos would perish anyway. However, she noted that non-consequentialist concerns must also be addressed for therapeutic cloning, among them the question of the moral status of the early embryo. She also made a distinction between morality and the law, arguing that not everything that is immoral ought to be prohibited by law, and showed how this position relates to human cloning.

Paul Billings, co-founder of GeneSage, has been involved in crafting an international treaty to ban human reproductive cloning and germ-line genetic engineering. As arguments against human cloning he cited:

There is no right to have a genetically related child.

Cloning is not safe.

Cloning is not medically necessary.

Cloning could not be delivered in an equitable manner.

Billings also believes that the benefits of stem cell therapies have been "wildly oversold." Currently, he argues, there are no effective treatments coming from this research. He is also concerned about how developing abilities in nuclear transfer technology may have applications in germ-line genetic engineering that we do not want to encourage. As a result, he favors the current go-slow approach of banning the creation of new cell lines until some therapies have been proven effective. At the same time, he believes we must work to better the situation of the poor and marginalized so their access to all therapies is improved.

Legal Perspectives

Member of the State Advisory Committee on Human Cloning Henry "Hank" Greely addressed some of the difficulties in creating a workable regulatory system for human reproductive cloning. First he addressed safety, which, considering the 5 to 10 times greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion in cloned sheep, he argued clearly justifies regulation. The FDA has currently claimed jurisdiction over this technology, but Greely doubted whether the courts would uphold this claim. Given these facts, Greely saw three alternatives for the state of California:

Do nothing; let the federal government take care of it.

Create an FDA equivalent to regulate the safety of the process, an alternative he pointed out for which the state has no experience.

Continue the current ban on the grounds of safety until such time as the procedure is adjudged safe. Next Greely responded to suggestions that the state might regulate by distinguishing between prospective cloners on the basis of their motivation, for example, denying a request to clone a person to provide heart tissue for another person but okaying a request if cloning were the only opportunity a couple might have to conceive a child. Greely found the idea of the state deciding on such basis deeply troubling because it would necessitate "peering into someones soul" in a manner that government is not adept at doing.

The impact of regulation on universities was the focus of Debra Zumwalts presentation. As Stanford University general counsel, Zumwalt talked about the necessity of creating regulations that are clear and simple. Currently, federal regulations on stem cells are unclear, she argued, making it difficult for universities and other institutions to tell if they are in compliance. She believes that regulations should be based on science and good public policy rather than on politics. As a result, she favored overall policy being set by the legislature but details being worked out at the administrative level by regulatory agencies with expertise. Whatever regulations California develops should not be more restrictive than the federal regulations, she warned, or research would be driven out of the state. Like several other speakers, Zumwalt was concerned about federal regulations restricting stem cell research to existing cell lines. That, she feared, would drive all research into private hands. "We must continue to have a public knowledge base," she said. Also, she praised the inherent safeguards in academic research including peer review, ethics panels, and institutional review boards.

SCU Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good June Carbone looked at the role of California cloning decisions in contributing to the governance of biotechnology. California, she suggested, cannot address these issues alone, and thus might make the most useful contribution by helping to forge a new international moral consensus through public debate. Taking a lesson from U.S. response to recent terrorist attacks, she argued for international consensus based on the alliance of principle and self-interest. Such consensus would need to be enforced both by carrot and stick and should, she said, include a public-private partnership to deal with ethical issues. Applying these ideas to reproductive cloning, she suggested that we think about which alliances would be necessary to prevent or limit the practice. Preventing routine use might be accomplished
by establishing a clear ethical and professional line prohibiting reproductive cloning. Preventing exceptional use (a determined person with sufficient money to find a willing doctor) might not be possible. As far as stem cell research is concerned, Carbone argued that the larger the investment in such research, the bigger the carrot--the more the funder would be able to regulate the process. That, she suggested, argues for a government role in the funding. If the professional community does not respect the ethical line drawn by politicians, and alternative funding is available from either public sources abroad or private sources at home, the U.S. political debate runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.

"California Cloning" was organized by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and co-sponsored by the Bannan Center for Jesuit Education and Christian Values; the Center for Science, Technology, and Society; the SCU School of Law; the High Tech Law Institute; the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Community of Science Scholars Initiative; and the law firm of Latham & Watkins.

Original post:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research ...

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off on The Ethics of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research …

Cloning – Let Us Reason

Posted: at 2:37 pm

Cloning

Cloning

The replication of human beings through technological means has long been a subject of popular science fiction novels. Today as in many instances science has caught up with science fiction. We are told we now have the ability to improve the overall quality of life through genetic engineering.

We will soon be able to enhance our own intelligence, whether its through a chip implanted in the brain to make one smarter or have the blind see, and the deaf hear, or by gene splicing to give what is missing or correct what is flawed. Can wisdom enhancing agents be built in man that would have him go beyond any natural capabilities many say yes.

This new technology will not just affect a few people. It will directly affect the whole world we live in, as this technology will dominate the new century if allowed. Science allowed us previously to arrange the building blocks of life, now we can add or subtract them.

We now hear of Head transplants in monkeys, headless frogs, cloned sheep, designer humans, we are entering a very different world now. Nuclear transfer has been done before (which is a clone from the Nucleus of an adult cell), it was performed successfully on tetra, a primate who recently made the news. Most of us have not considered the ramifications of this new science breakthrough that is just now making the news. Eventually we will have to make up our minds about how we feel about cloning. I'm in no position to speak scientifically on these matters but I have looked at what is being said and for us to think through the ramifications of what will soon occur

We first heard about this from Scientists in Scotland that had successfully cloned a sheep called Dolly, the first mammal to be reproduced identically from the artificially manipulated cells of a donor mammal. Since Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996 scientists have been going further with their DNA research.

But Dolly was not the first mammal ever cloned in a lab. Many others, including rhesus monkeys, have been cloned from one, two, and four-celled embryos. Dolly was the first mammal cloned from adult cells, which is a more difficult achievement scientifically than embryonic cloning.

The researchers in Scotland responsible for Dolly have plainly stated that they see no reason to pursue human cloning and are personally repulsed by the idea. But not all feel the same way and many would like to see this funded for numerous reasons because they believe its beneficial. We all know that every technology has the ability for abuse even though it was invented for good. But good intentions will guarantee nothing This is one of those things that if allowed can have a more disastrous affect than the atom bomb, if not controlled. But who will control it?

In Scotland, sheep with human genes produce a drug-to treat cystic fibrosis. In the United States, arctic flounder genes have helped tomatoes resist frost. These do have benefits, but then we have Glow-in-the-dark mice scampering around labs in Japan, their bodies hosting DNA from fluorescent jelly-fish. I guess this will help to catch mice in the dark.

In USA weekend Oct.1--3 1999 the question was asked Is Jurassic park coming true? entombed in Siberian permafrost for 20,000 years, a well-preserved woolly mammoth may soon prove extinction is only temporary.

The ancient mammoth is to be dug out and sent to an underground laboratory and , a group of researchers will - cue the Jurassic Park soundtrack - attempt to extract DNA that eventually could be used to clone the seven-ton animal.

Larry Agenbroad, a mammoth expert from Northern Arizona University There are very good odds of finding intact DNA.

Using the same technique that produced Dolly, scientists might inject the nucleus from a mammoth cell into an elephants egg, then zap it with electricity to jumpstart cell division. Next step: Implant the mammoth embryo into a surrogate elephant mother.

There's tremendous potential to re-create an animal that existed with humans in prehistory, says Agenbroad. And where might such an animal call home ? one possibility- an ice-age preserve called Pleistocene Park under construction in Siberia.

Still skepticism reigns in the scientific community. The likelihood [of cloning an extinct species) is very low, but one should never say never, says Rob DeSalle, a molecular biologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Ten years ago, scientists didn't think cloning mammals was possible.

The mammoth may be only the first animal to rise from a dead species. In Australia and New Zealand, researchers are rounding up preserved specimens of an extinct tiger and Huia bird in a quest for viable DNA.

The last Spanish mountain goat in the world was killed by a falling tree but not to worry they are going to clone him. What this means is there may be no more endangered species. If they are successful with a Clone sample from a wooly mammoth or any of these, what next? What if they were to clone what they call cro magnon man should they clone him to see what they were like. There has even been talk of cloning the Shroud of Turin. On the Art bell show Malachi Martin was asked about this and he stated this could be the 2nd coming. Hardly, but something to seriously consider in the quest for cloning humans.

An Internet poll asking should humans be cloned?

Current Poll Results:Yes: 49% (892 Votes) No: 51% (897 Votes)

We are split on its usage, But do we know what its hidden potentials and dangers are?

Stephen Grebe: professor of biology, at American University- Were going to be facing this issue with humans... With that possibility open, Im concerned without safeguards that this will become a reality. It may very well already be.

A biotech company called Advanced Cell Technology announce it has created the first human embryos ever to be produced in cloning. This was Nov.2001( Bush Wants Human Cloning Banned Ginsa Kolata, The New York times on the Web Nov.26, 2001) If it cannot happen where it is illegal, they will certainly find a place where it is legal to do there New science.

We do know cloning occurs naturally Identical twins are an example, One in 67 births is twins. Identical twins are produced when a fertilized egg divides for the first time not remaining as a single organism, splitting into two independent cells. However each twin has his or her own distinct intellectual, emotional, psychological, and spiritual life. No twin considers themselves a carbon copy of someone else, they are individuals that enter different occupations, live different lifespans, get different diseases, They are shaped by their own likes and dislikes. Some say this is what clones would be like but we really don't know.

Solving the Food Problem

Departing from genetic engineering in humans there are other ideas that many consider advantages. In a meeting the British Association delegates heard from scientists predictions of apples with antibodies that fight against tooth decay and crops that would glow when thirsty or diseased.

German scientists in Basle have already made fruit flies with extra eyes on their wings, antennae and legs, and scorpion poison genes have been added by Oxford geneticists to cabbages to kill caterpillars.

Monsanto has developed potatoes with bacterial insecticide genes to destroy Colorado beetle, and ESCA Genetics has made coffee beans with low caffeine, high aroma and pest resistance.

Genetic Engineering on Foods

Experimentation
was done to find a more effective way to reproduce already genetically engineered sheep for production of pharmaceuticals. Sheep can be genetically engineered to produce a certain human protein or hormone in its milk. The human protein can then be harvested from the milk and sold on the market. Scientists take the human gene for the production of this protein or hormone and insert it into an early sheep embryo. Hopefully the embryo will grow into a sheep that will produce the protein. Edinburgh scientists have made a whole series of identical sheep, with the potential to create a flock of thousands of perfect clones.

The first transgenic mammals were born in 1976. There are now reported 60,000 artificially mutated animals born in the UK each year. Many of these creatures are said to contain a unique blend of genes from two or three species.

Some have been made by adding human genes to make them grow faster, or to turn their bodies into human medicine factories, or to make organs suitable for transplant. We could be setting ourselves up for agricultural and ecological disasters.

If we cloned animals or fruit for food and a large percentage of a nation's cattle were clones, if it were attacked by a virus it could effect the entire population or foods at one time. The result could be catastrophic food shortages in that nation if they depended on them. But with this research they could change the gene structure in the animal or food to be inoculated against it.

Nexia Biotechnologies in Canada cloned Three goats their next step is to use cloning to create goat that secretes spider silk gene in milk, commercial goal is to make Bio-Steel the strongest, toughest fiber in the world, (tensile strength 300,000 pounds per square inch.) Stronger and lighter than steel or polymers, uses could be artificial tendons or ligaments and other bio-degradable structures in medicine. First cloned goats with new gene will then be breed conventionally (reported by Reuters April 28, 1999).

There is now an enormous amount of gene altered food. In Europe crops have been torn up and stores have bannedthese products. In the US the stores want to carry biotech foods but the US government refuses to put labels on them. Up to 70% of the foods on shelves are genetically modified to improve flavor and shelf life (replacing preservatives, BHA and BHT ). The maker of Gerber foods recently dropped using genetically modified crops in its products. The nations two largest natural food chains are asking the FDA to label these genetically altered foods so they can be identified and kept out of health food stores.

Lets Look at Some of the Ideas on the Table

Here is where Cloning can be abused for health - Clone the child, keep the frozen twin available in case for when the original twin needs a transplant of some organ. There would be no rejection the tissues would match perfectly.

Artificial twins could be kept frozen as an insurance policy even after the original child is born. If the original child dies at an early age, a frozen twin could be thawed, and the parent would have the identical child to raise again. This may sound good to those who may grieve over their loss, having a replacement will fill the void of having no child.

Here is where Cloning can be abused for convenience. It would allow a women to have one set of identical twins without going through two pregnancies. The women may not want to disrupt her career, or would prefer to only have one child at a time. With cloning it would be assured that they would be identical. It would make things more convenient. A matter of fact a woman can clone a child put it on ice and take it out any time she pleased. If her pregnancy was inconvenient she can abort and take up where she left off years later. What kind of an identity crises would someone have to find they were not the original and a carbon copy a carbon copy from a lab an extra.

What happens where children are no longer loved and valued for who they are? We see this already with abortions, will this be any different? Many teenagers even adults struggle with the expectations of the culture to have the perfect image in the size and shape of their bodies. Will society influence everyone to have a certain ultimate look, or ability and reject those who do not! One question leads to another

Clones Rights United Front founder Randolfe Wicker, Were fighting for research, and were defending peoples reproductive rights... I realize my clone would be my identical twin, and my identical twin has a right to be born. This argument fails in that it was not a natural occurrence, he was not born in the true sense. Does this mean whatever we can make from another human being has as much rights as we do? Maybe more.

The bible teaches that reproduction is after each kind. God made an order to the species and a certain way for it to occur. Today scientists have the ability to not only change the species, they now have the ability to create a whole new species. Through Genetic engineering we are able to create something that has never been in nature before.

Critic Jeremy Rifkin called for an immediate ban on human cloning, urging it be classed a crime on par with rape, child abuse and murder. A spokesman for the lab that created the clone stated that animal cloning necessarily would lead to human cloning.

History has proven whatever can be thought of can eventually be done . what is forbidden now will become a normality of life later, especially if there is money to be made. Under scientific advancement the Pandora's box is open.

Should this technology be left up to the population to vote by their pocketbooks (considering our sin nature, we would want to make ourselves perfect people. Laws have always lagged behind the technology as the product is marketed. We are never ready for the technology whether its guns, nuclear. There is no way for the laws to catch up with how fast science is progressing today. Yet many Scientist are excited as they see the potential for all kinds of possibilities.

Supporters of cloning feel the technological benefits of cloning for humanity outweigh any of the possible social consequences. As long as research is carefully done. We can all have an improvement in our quality of life. But do we want to roll the dice on this issue. Once its rolling it will be very hard to turn back , it could be a mistake of dire consequences.

The Benefits

No one wants to die. Bio-engineering is pursuing to understand the basic building blocks of life, they are pursuing knowledge that only God knew. Dr. Richard Seed, one of the leading proponents of human cloning technology, suggests that it may someday be possible to reverse the aging process because of what we learn from cloning.

If they can mutate a few genes they can prolong life immensely and postpone the penalty of sin.

Science has identified that the average person carries 8 defective genes inside them. These defective genes allow us to become sick when we would normally remain healthy. With the technology of human cloning it may be possible to ensure that we no longer suffer because of our defective genes. We could have optimum health.

There was a court case where a child was denied health insurance because of what is in his gene pool, he was not at risk now but could be in the future.

Heart disease is the number one killer in the United States and several other industrialized countries. Scientists believe that they may be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the
areas of the heart that have been damaged. This can mean no more surgery for cures. Cloning may replace organ donors as the compatibility would be close to 100%. Surgery as we know it may change. It may look very crude after we venture into this new science.

Cloning research may contribute to treating diseases by allowing scientists to reprogram cells. The benefits of cloning could provide spare parts ones liver cells, or eye cells, or bone cells, hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys could be produced. Embryonic stem cells can be grown to produce organs or tissues to repair or replace damaged ones. If any of body parts failed or were injured they can be replaced. Limbs for amputees may be able to be regenerated. Burn victims could receive new skin. Brain cells for the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for quadriplegics a paraplegic could be cloned, get a new body ending their paralysis. Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, heart failure, degenerative joint disease, diabetes, and other problems may become curable if human cloning and its technology are not banned. Sounds good on paper but

Take for example Jesse Gelsinger was born with ornithine transcarbamoylase (OTC) deficiency, a rare metabolic disorder that disables the liver and causes a toxic buildup of ammonia. He volunteered for gene-therapy program last September at the University of Pennsylvania because gene therapy had been hailed as the new frontier of medicine. The experiment entailed patients injected with corrective genes to replace the missing or defective ones. The purpose was a commendable one, to save lives. Within 24 hours after Jesse received his first infusion, he was suffering from a life-threatening clotting disorder which red blood cells were breaking down faster than the liver could metabolize them. He now is known as the first patient to die directly from the result of gene therapy. His father who encouraged him to do this said to a senate subcommittee investigating this that he was not given all the information. Such as side effects and that lab monkeys have died during the same experiment. (Death by research People 2/21/2000)

Cloning animals for medicines, organs, and body parts to benefit ill or injured humans is a humane concept, but does the means justify the end. Are we playing God? We could possibly expand the human lifetime to double or even a thousand years if one keeps replacing what fails. It may be the golden age of mankind that is found in ancient myths and legends, but it will not be the Millennium of the bible.

We are allowed by law to fix flaws or failures in our human body but we are not allowed to expand it beyond its basic natural capabilities. So why not? We already receive spare kidneys from family members and parts from other humans like a liver or a heart to save a life, so what can be wrong with taking a cell from ones own body to have a perfect match.

A Cloned cell as a replacement for a body part is certainly not a human person, but it does open the door. As we all know once the door is open the envelope gets pushed further in time.

gene therapy can be done by having the genes are changed in the embryo so when the person develops it will contain the new genes. Designer genes will not be something you wear but something you are. Some believe that if a parent wanted to produce talents in a child similar to his own, they can clone the DNA from the cell of the adult that may produce a child with the same traits. You can call them designer children. Clones that are derived from an existing adult cell, that has older genes. What will life be to a cloned son looking at his dad and know he is his exact twin? The cloned son will know how tall he will be, whether he will be bald at 30, what are the hereditary flaws he has and will know what talents he possesses, unless there is gene tampering.

Supporters of cloning feel that with controlled research, the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh any of the possible social consequences, but do they outweigh the scientific dangers? The applications of cloning is seen as humanitarian Cloning could stop parents who risk passing their defects to a child. A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the duplicate would be tested for disease and disorder of the original. If the clone is found free from any defects, then other would be as well. But what if it is found defective? Will it be destroyed for a more optimum fetus or will it be fixed?

Through Genetic research and use of this technology the advantage of curing diseases and its ability to treat and cure genetic flaws diseases is an ethical goal. But the potential to Create new species with gene splicing is not. Serious questions about the ethical legitimacy and potential abuses surround this new science. Its likely that the answers will not come quickly, but will research will continue.

When the Sunday Times reported that British scientists have created a frog embryo without a head.

Dr Patrick Dixon, a leading authority on the ethics of human cloning, author of The Genetic Revolution which forecasted the cloning of animals, predicted Headless human clones will be used to grow organs and tissues for transplant surgery in the next 5-10 years. The technique used to create the headless frog could be adapted to grow human organs such as hearts, kidneys, liver and pancreases in an embryonic sac living in an artificial womb,

We are at the door of doing anything we want. Now people who may be dying can possibly get another body that was dead and make it alive by transplanting their head Right now we can freeze a body (cryonics) and we can even surgically remove a (monkeys )head and put it on another body. So when a persons body wears out they can have a cloned xtra and remove their head and transplant it onto the clone. The potential is that one can live forever as long as long as the bodies parts keep coming. What would it mean to have an x-tra body part for you that you know would be compatible if an organ failed or a body part was destroyed. Certainly it would be wonderful. But with this seemingly advancement in technology comes a darker side, something so sinister that humanity has no way of grasping it right now. For the most part, science makes its progress and influences human ethics not vice versa. Look at evolution and modern psychology.

What happens if the original person dies, the clone can take his place. How many copies can be made, 1 to 5 or even10 its all left up to us. Parents who have a child die could recover them by recovering the cells from their dead childs body. Appealing and possibly comforting but it can never give back the original lost child. The clones environment may change their personality even though they have the same genetic makeup as the original. In other words they may look the same but be a completely different person on the inside, if we can actually call them a person. Are they artificial, or genuine a human. What about their soul? Will they have one (Spirit). How do we reconcile what God made as a family unit now being dispensed with. This truly will be future shock, now.

One could literally make replacements for people and produce a whole new society. They can be automatons that do the work, while we their creators enjoy ourselves, the possibilities are endless for both good or bad.

This new population could be susceptible to the same diseases, and one disease could devastate the entire population if we are all clones having the same exact genes. Maybe the variety of man with all our flaws was included in Gods wisdom.

What of Infanticide? In India four million they're missing young girls
because peasants have sonograms. China had to ban them. Will everyone choose males and no females. They may have men with no grand children. Do we remove the process of conception that was God given in the marriage relationship. This new science may well affect marriage as we know it.

If cloning is allowed for humans, there would be no genetic need for men, they can be replaced. All of us can be replaced because we would be an inferior product to the new an improved one.

If we mess with the DNA there is not telling what we can turn ourselves into. Somewhere in Germany is a baby Superman, born in Berlin with bulging arm and leg muscles. Not yet 5, he can hold seven-pound weights with arms extended, something many adults cannot do. He has muscles twice the size of other kids his age and half their body fat.

DNA testing showed why: The boy has a genetic mutation that boosts muscle growth. New England Journal of Medicine, represents the first documented human case of such a mutation... story onsuperbaby

Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy Maryann Mott National Geographic News January 25, 2005.

Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimerasa hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.

Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.

researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing spare parts, such as livers, to transplant into humans.

A chimera is a mixture of two or more species in one body. Not all are considered troubling, though.

For example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. The surgerywhich makes the recipient a human-animal chimerais widely accepted. And for years scientists have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals.

What's caused the uproar is the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species.

Biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin is opposed to crossing species boundaries, because he believes animals have the right to exist without being tampered with or crossed with another species.

He concedes that these studies would lead to some medical breakthroughs. Still, they should not be done.

There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals, Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute forexperimentation on live animals.

One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense, he continued. It's the scientists who want to do this. They've now gone over the edge into the pathological domain. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

part 2 the moral and religious questions

Excerpt from:

Cloning - Let Us Reason

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off on Cloning – Let Us Reason

Cloning

Posted: at 2:37 pm

ANIMAL CLONING

A clone is an organism that is descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor. Animals can be cloned by embryo splitting or nuclear transfer. Embryo splitting involves bisecting the multicellular embryo at an early stage of development to generate "twins". This type of cloning occurs naturally and has also been performed in the laboratory with a number of animal species.

Cloning can also be achieved by nuclear transfer where the genetic material from one cell is placed into a "recipient" unfertilized egg that has had its genetic material removed by a process called enucleation. The first mammals were cloned via nuclear transfer during the early1980s, almost 30 years after the initial successful experiments with frogs . Numerous mammalian species have been cloned from cells of preimplantation embryos: namely mice, rats, rabbits, pigs, goats, sheep, cattle and even two rhesus monkeys, NETI and DETTO .

DOLLY, the sheep, was the first animal that was cloned via nuclear transfer from a cultured adult cell . A diverse range of adult tissues have now been successfully cloned in a variety of species including cattle , mice , pigs , cats , rabbits , goats , and zebrafish .

The proportion of adult cell nuclei to develop into live offspring after transfer into an enucleated egg is very low . High rates of abortion have been observed at various stages of pregnancy after placement of the eggs containing the adult cell nuclei into recipient animals . Various abnormalities have been observed in cloned cows and mice after birth and this has been found to be somewhat dependent on the type of tissue that originated the nuclei used to make the clone . The reasons for the low efficiency of cloning by nuclear transfer are currently under investigation but it is thought that it may be related to insufficient nuclear reprogramming as the cloned nuclei goes from directing the production of an adult somatic cell to directing the production of a whole new embryo.

Mammals Cloned From Adult Cells (Table from De Berardino, 2001)

Cloning offers the opportunity to make transgenic animals from cultured cells that have been genetically engineered . The first genetically engineered or transgenic mammalian clones were sheep born in 1997 carrying the coding sequences for human clotting factor IX, which is an important therapeutic for hemophiliacs. One of these transgenic sheep, POLLY, expressed this protein in her milk . Cloning may also be useful for the preservation of rare and endangered species , and in human therapeutics where patients may be able to clone their own nuclei to make healthy tissue that could be used to replace diseased tissue without the risk of immunological rejection.

Making Genetically Engineered Clones (Data from Schnieke et al., 1997; Figure from De Berardino, 2001). Fetal cells in culture were transfected with a DNA sequence containing a selectable marker (neomycin resistance), the human gene for clotting factor IX, and a regulatory sequence to direct the gene to function only in the mammary gland. Following selection for neomycin resistance, nucleus from surviving cells were each transferred to an enucleated egg. Of the three transgenic clones born, one named POLLY survived and later secreted human clotting factor in her milk. Polly is the first transgenic mammalian clone.

Companies Using Cloning Technology

Cyagra

Advanced Cell Technology, Inc

Viagen

University of Idaho CloneZone

REFERENCES

1. Briggs,R, King,TJ: Transplantation of living nuclei from blastula cells into enucleated frogs' eggs. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A 39: 455-463 (1952).

2. Meng,L, Ely,JJ, Stouffer,RL, Wolf,DP: Rhesus monkeys produced by nuclear transfer. Biol Reprod 57: 454-459 (1997).

3. Wilmut,I, Schnieke,AE, McWhir,J, Kind,AJ, Campbell,KH: Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385: 810-813 (1997).

4. Galli,C, Duchi,R, Moor,RM, Lazzari,G: Mammalian leukocytes contain all of the genetic information necessary for the development of a new individual. Cloning 1: 161-170 (1999).

5. Hill,JR, Burghardt,RC, Jones,K, Long,CR, Looney,CR, Shin,T, Spencer,TE, Thompson,JA, Winger,QA, Westhusin,ME: Evidence for placental abnormality as the major cause of mortality in first-trimester somatic cell cloned bovine fetuses. Biol Reprod 63: 1787-1794 (2000).

6. Kato,Y, Tani,T, Sotomaru,Y, Kurokawa,K, Kato,J, Doguchi,H, Yasue,H, Tsunoda,Y: Eight calves cloned from somatic cells of a single adult. Science 282: 2095-2098 (1998).

7. Kubota,C, Yamakuchi,H, Todoroki,J, Mizoshita,K, Tabara,N, Barber,M, Yang,X: Six cloned calves produced from adult fibroblast cells after long-term culture. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A 97: 990-995 (2000).

8. Shiga,K, Fujita,T, Hirose,K, Sasae,Y, Nagai,T: Production of calves by transfer of nuclei from cultured somatic cells obtained from Japanese black bulls. Theriogenology 52: 527-535 (1999).

9. Wells,DN, Misica,PM, Tervit,HR: Production of cloned calves following nuclear transfer with cultured adult mural granulosa cells. Biol Reprod 60: 996-1005 (1999).

10. Zakhartchenko,V, Alberio,R, Stojkovic,M, Prelle,K, Schernthaner,W, Stojkovic,P, Wenigerkind,H, Wanke,R, Duchler,M, Steinborn,R, Mueller,M, Brem,G, Wolf,E: Adult cloning in cattle: potential of nuclei from a permanent cell line and from primary cultures. Mol.Reprod Dev. 54: 264-272 (1999).

11. Ogura,A, Inoue,K, Ogonuki,N, Noguchi,A, Takano,K, Nagano,R, Suzuki,O, Lee,J, Ishino,F, Matsuda,J: Production of male cloned mice from fresh, cultured, and cryopreserved immature Sertoli cells. Biol Reprod 62: 1579-1584 (2000).

12. Wakayama,T, Perry,AC, Zuccotti,M, Johnson,KR, Yanagimachi,R: Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei. Nature 394: 369-374 (1998).

13. Wakayama,T, Yanagimachi,R: Cloning of male mice from adult tail-tip cells. Nat.Genet. 22: 127-128 (1999).

14. Polejaeva,IA, Chen,SH, Vaught,TD, Page,RL, Mullins,J, Ball,S, Dai,Y, Boone,J, Walker,S, Ayares,DL, Colman,A, Campbell,KH: Cloned pigs produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nature 407: 86-90 (2000).

15. Shin,T, Kraemer,D, Pryor,J, Liu,L, Rugila,J, Howe,L, Buck,S, Murphy,K, Lyons,L, Westhusin,M: A cat cloned by nuclear transplantation. Nature 415: 859 (2002).

16. Che
sne,P, Adenot,PG, Viglietta,C, Baratte,M, Boulanger,L, Renard,JP: Cloned rabbits produced by nuclear transfer from adult somatic cells. Nature Biotechnology 20: 366-369 (2002).

17. Keefer,CL, Baldassarre,H, Keyston,R, Wang,B, Bhatia,B, Bilodeau,AS, Zhou,JF, Leduc,M, Downey,BR, Lazaris,A, Karatzas,CN: Generation of dwarf goat (Capra hircus) clones following nuclear transfer with transfected and nontransfected fetal fibroblasts and in vitro-matured oocytes. Biol Reprod 64: 849-856 (2001).

18. Lee,KY, Huang,HG, Ju,BS, Yang,ZG, Lin,S: Cloned zebrafish by nuclear transfer from long-term-cultured cells. Nature Biotechnology 20: 795-799 (2002).

19. Tsunoda,Y, Kato,Y: Recent progress and problems in animal cloning. Differentiation 69: 158-161 (2002).

20. Di Berardino,MA: Animal cloning--the route to new genomics in agriculture and medicine. Differentiation 68: 67-83 (2001).

21. Schnieke,AE, Kind,AJ, Ritchie,WA, Mycock,K, Scott,AR, Ritchie,M, Wilmut,I, Colman,A, Campbell,KH: Human factor IX transgenic sheep produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts. Science 278: 2130-2133 (1997).

22. Lanza,RP, Cibelli,JB, Diaz,F, Moraes,CT, Farin,PW, Farin,CE, Hammer.C.J., West,MD, Damiani,P: Cloning of an endangered species (Bos gaurus) using interspecies nuclear transfer. Cloning 2: 79-90 (2000).

Go here to see the original:

Cloning

Posted in Cloning | Comments Off on Cloning

Evolution – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: at 2:36 pm

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor,[4][5][6] which lived approximately 3.53.8 billion years ago,[7] although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia.[8][9]

Repeated formation of new species (speciation), change within species (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth are demonstrated by shared sets of morphological and biochemical traits, including shared DNA sequences.[10] These shared traits are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct a biological "tree of life" based on evolutionary relationships (phylogenetics), using both existing species and fossils. The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenic graphite,[11] to microbial mat fossils,[12][13][14] to fossilized multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[15] More than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.[16][17] Estimates of Earth's current species range from 10 to 14 million,[18] of which about 1.2 million have been documented.[19]

In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859). Evolution by natural selection is a process demonstrated by the observation that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, along with three facts about populations: 1) traits vary among individuals with respect to morphology, physiology, and behaviour (phenotypic variation), 2) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness), and 3) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness).[20] Thus, in successive generations members of a population are replaced by progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the biophysical environment in which natural selection takes place. This teleonomy is the quality whereby the process of natural selection creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[21] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of microevolution include mutation and genetic drift.[22]

In the early 20th century the modern evolutionary synthesis integrated classical genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis, evolutionism, and other beliefs about innate "progress" within the largest-scale trends in evolution, became obsolete scientific theories.[23] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolutionary biology by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing mathematical models of theoretical biology and biological theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory.

In terms of practical application, an understanding of evolution has been instrumental to developments in numerous scientific and industrial fields, including agriculture, human and veterinary medicine, and the life sciences in general.[24][25][26] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just in the traditional branches of biology but also in other academic disciplines, including biological anthropology, and evolutionary psychology.[27][28]Evolutionary Computation, a sub-field of Artificial Intelligence, is the result of the application of Darwinian principles to problems in Computer Science.

The proposal that one type of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[30] Such proposals survived into Roman times. The poet and philosopher Lucretius followed Empedocles in his masterwork De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things).[31][32] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms," "ideas," or (in Latin translations) "species."[33][34] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of organisms always correspond one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[35]

In the 17th century, the new method of modern science rejected Aristotle's approach. It sought explanations of natural phenomena in terms of physical laws that were the same for all visible things and that did not require the existence of any fixed natural categories or divine cosmic order. However, this new approach was slow to take root in the biological sciences, the last bastion of the concept of fixed natural types. John Ray applied one of the previously more general terms for fixed natural types, "species," to plant and animal types, but he strictly identified each type of living thing as a species and proposed that each species could be defined by the features that perpetuated themselves generation after generation.[36] These species were designed by God, but showed differences caused by local conditions. The biological classification introduced by Carl Linnaeus in 1735 explicitly recognized the hierarchical nature of species relationships, but still viewed species as fixed according to a divine plan.[37]

Other naturalists of this time speculated on the evolutionary change of species over time according to natural laws. In 1751, Pierre Louis Maupertuis wrote of natural modifications occurring during reproduction and accumulating over many generations to produce new species.[38]Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon suggested that species could degenerate into different organisms, and Erasmus Darwin proposed that all warm-blooded animals could have descended from a single microorganism (or "filament").[39] The first full-fledged evolutionary scheme was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's "transmutation" theory of 1809,[40] which envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and postulated that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by their use or disuse in parents.[41][42] (The latter process was later called Lamarckism.)[41][43][44][45] These ideas were condemned by established naturalists as speculation lacking empirical support. In particular, Georges Cuvier insisted that species were unrelated and fixed, their similarities reflecting divine design for functional needs. In the meantime, Ray's ideas of benevolent design had been developed by William Paley into the Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802)
, which proposed complex adaptations as evidence of divine design and which was admired by Charles Darwin.[46][47][48]

The crucial break from the concept of constant typological classes or types in biology came with the theory of evolution through natural selection, which was formulated by Charles Darwin in terms of variable populations. Partly influenced by An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) by Thomas Robert Malthus, Darwin noted that population growth would lead to a "struggle for existence" in which favorable variations prevailed as others perished. In each generation, many offspring fail to survive to an age of reproduction because of limited resources. This could explain the diversity of plants and animals from a common ancestry through the working of natural laws in the same way for all types of organism.[49][50][51][52] Darwin developed his theory of "natural selection" from 1838 onwards and was writing up his "big book" on the subject when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a version of virtually the same theory in 1858. Their separate papers were presented together at a 1858 meeting of the Linnean Society of London.[53] At the end of 1859, Darwin's publication of his "abstract" as On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and in a way that led to an increasingly wide acceptance of concepts of evolution. Thomas Henry Huxley applied Darwin's ideas to humans, using paleontology and comparative anatomy to provide strong evidence that humans and apes shared a common ancestry. Some were disturbed by this since it implied that humans did not have a special place in the universe.[54]

Precise mechanisms of reproductive heritability and the origin of new traits remained a mystery. Towards this end, Darwin developed his provisional theory of pangenesis.[55] In 1865, Gregor Mendel reported that traits were inherited in a predictable manner through the independent assortment and segregation of elements (later known as genes). Mendel's laws of inheritance eventually supplanted most of Darwin's pangenesis theory.[56]August Weismann made the important distinction between germ cells that give rise to gametes (such as sperm and egg cells) and the somatic cells of the body, demonstrating that heredity passes through the germ line only. Hugo de Vries connected Darwin's pangenesis theory to Weismann's germ/soma cell distinction and proposed that Darwin's pangenes were concentrated in the cell nucleus and when expressed they could move into the cytoplasm to change the cells structure. De Vries was also one of the researchers who made Mendel's work well-known, believing that Mendelian traits corresponded to the transfer of heritable variations along the germline.[57] To explain how new variants originate, de Vries developed a mutation theory that led to a temporary rift between those who accepted Darwinian evolution and biometricians who allied with de Vries.[42][58][59] In the 1930s, pioneers in the field of population genetics, such as Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and J. B. S. Haldane set the foundations of evolution onto a robust statistical philosophy. The false contradiction between Darwin's theory, genetic mutations, and Mendelian inheritance was thus reconciled.[60]

In the 1920s and 1930s a modern evolutionary synthesis connected natural selection, mutation theory, and Mendelian inheritance into a unified theory that applied generally to any branch of biology. The modern synthesis was able to explain patterns observed across species in populations, through fossil transitions in palaeontology, and even complex cellular mechanisms in developmental biology.[42][61] The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 demonstrated a physical mechanism for inheritance.[62]Molecular biology improved our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advancements were also made in phylogenetic systematics, mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of evolutionary trees.[63][64] In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky penned that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent explanatory body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.[65]

Since then, the modern synthesis has been further extended to explain biological phenomena across the full and integrative scale of the biological hierarchy, from genes to species. This extension, known as evolutionary developmental biology and informally called "evo-devo," emphasises how changes between generations (evolution) acts on patterns of change within individual organisms (development).[66][67][68]

Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable traitsthe inherited characteristics of an organism. In humans, for example, eye colour is an inherited characteristic and an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of their parents.[69] Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome (genetic material) is called its genotype.[70]

The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behaviour of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.[71] As a result, many aspects of an organism's phenotype are not inherited. For example, suntanned skin comes from the interaction between a person's genotype and sunlight; thus, suntans are not passed on to people's children. However, some people tan more easily than others, due to differences in genotypic variation; a striking example are people with the inherited trait of albinism, who do not tan at all and are very sensitive to sunburn.[72]

Heritable traits are passed from one generation to the next via DNA, a molecule that encodes genetic information.[70] DNA is a long biopolymer composed of four types of bases. The sequence of bases along a particular DNA molecule specify the genetic information, in a manner similar to a sequence of letters spelling out a sentence. Before a cell divides, the DNA is copied, so that each of the resulting two cells will inherit the DNA sequence. Portions of a DNA molecule that specify a single functional unit are called genes; different genes have different sequences of bases. Within cells, the long strands of DNA form condensed structures called chromosomes. The specific location of a DNA sequence within a chromosome is known as a locus. If the DNA sequence at a locus varies between individuals, the different forms of this sequence are called alleles. DNA sequences can change through mutations, producing new alleles. If a mutation occurs within a gene, the new allele may affect the trait that the gene controls, altering the phenotype of the organism.[73] However, while this simple correspondence between an allele and a trait works in some cases, most traits are more complex and are controlled by quantitative trait loci (multiple interacting genes).[74][75]

Recent findings have confirmed important examples of heritable changes that cannot be explained by changes to the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA. These phenomena are classed as epigenetic inheritance systems.[76]DNA methylation marking chromatin, self-sustaining metabolic loops, gene silencing by RNA interference and the three-dimensional conformation of proteins (such as prions) are areas where epigenetic inheritance systems have been discovered at the organismic level.[77][78] De
velopmental biologists suggest that complex interactions in genetic networks and communication among cells can lead to heritable variations that may underlay some of the mechanics in developmental plasticity and canalisation.[79] Heritability may also occur at even larger scales. For example, ecological inheritance through the process of niche construction is defined by the regular and repeated activities of organisms in their environment. This generates a legacy of effects that modify and feed back into the selection regime of subsequent generations. Descendants inherit genes plus environmental characteristics generated by the ecological actions of ancestors.[80] Other examples of heritability in evolution that are not under the direct control of genes include the inheritance of cultural traits and symbiogenesis.[81][82]

An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence from the environment it has lived in. A substantial part of the phenotypic variation in a population is caused by genotypic variation.[75] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixationwhen it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[83]

Natural selection will only cause evolution if there is enough genetic variation in a population. Before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, one common hypothesis was blending inheritance. But with blending inheritance, genetic variance would be rapidly lost, making evolution by natural selection implausible. The HardyWeinberg principle provides the solution to how variation is maintained in a population with Mendelian inheritance. The frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) will remain constant in the absence of selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift.[84]

Variation comes from mutations in the genome, reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction and migration between populations (gene flow). Despite the constant introduction of new variation through mutation and gene flow, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[85] However, even relatively small differences in genotype can lead to dramatic differences in phenotype: for example, chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.[86]

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome. When mutations occur, they may alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning, or have no effect. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[87]

Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome.[88] Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve.[89] This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors.[90] For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.[91]

New genes can be generated from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. This process is easier once a gene has been duplicated because it increases the redundancy of the system; one gene in the pair can acquire a new function while the other copy continues to perform its original function.[92][93] Other types of mutations can even generate entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA.[94][95]

The generation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions.[96][97] When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, domains act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together to produce new combinations with new and complex functions.[98] For example, polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyse one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.[99]

In asexual organisms, genes are inherited together, or linked, as they cannot mix with genes of other organisms during reproduction. In contrast, the offspring of sexual organisms contain random mixtures of their parents' chromosomes that are produced through independent assortment. In a related process called homologous recombination, sexual organisms exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes.[100] Recombination and reassortment do not alter allele frequencies, but instead change which alleles are associated with each other, producing offspring with new combinations of alleles.[101] Sex usually increases genetic variation and may increase the rate of evolution.[102][103]

The two-fold cost of sex was first described by John Maynard Smith.[104] The first cost is that only one of the two sexes can bear young.[clarification needed] (This cost does not apply to hermaphroditic species, like most plants and many invertebrates.) The second cost is that any individual who reproduces sexually can only pass on 50% of its genes to any individual offspring, with even less passed on as each new generation passes.[105] (Again, this applies mostly to the evolution of sexual dimorphism, which occurred long after the evolution of sex itself.) Yet sexual reproduction is the more common means of reproduction among eukaryotes and multicellular organisms (although more common than sexual dimorphism). The Red Queen hypothesis has been used to explain the significance of sexual reproduction as a means to enable continual evolution and adaptation in response to coevolution with other species in an ever-changing environment.[105][106][107][108]

Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations and between species.[109] It can therefore be a source of variation that is new to a population or to a species. Gene flow can be caused by the movement of individuals between separate populations of organisms, as might be caused by the movement of mice between inland and coastal populations, or the movement of pollen between heavy metal tolerant and heavy metal sensitive populations of grasses.

Gene transfer between species includes the formation of hybrid organisms and horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among bacteria.[110] In medicine, this contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, as when one bacteria acquires resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species.[111] Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the adzuki bean weevil Callosobruchus chinensis has occurred.[112][113] An example of larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic bdelloid rotifers, which have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi and plants.[114]Viruses can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across biological domains.[115]

Large-scale gene transfer has also occurred between the ancestors of eu
karyotic cells and bacteria, during the acquisition of chloroplasts and mitochondria. It is possible that eukaryotes themselves originated from horizontal gene transfers between bacteria and archaea.[116]

From a Neo-Darwinian perspective, evolution occurs when there are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms.[84] For example, the allele for black colour in a population of moths becoming more common. Mechanisms that can lead to changes in allele frequencies include natural selection, genetic drift, genetic hitchhiking, mutation and gene flow.

Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which traits that enhance survival and reproduction become more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:[20]

More offspring are produced than can possibly survive, and these conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors are more likely to pass on their traits to the next generation than those with traits that do not confer an advantage.[117]

The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[118] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[118] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.[119] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[118]

If an allele increases fitness more than the other alleles of that gene, then with each generation this allele will become more common within the population. These traits are said to be "selected for." Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival and increased fecundity. Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious allele results in this allele becoming rarerthey are "selected against."[120] Importantly, the fitness of an allele is not a fixed characteristic; if the environment changes, previously neutral or harmful traits may become beneficial and previously beneficial traits become harmful.[73] However, even if the direction of selection does reverse in this way, traits that were lost in the past may not re-evolve in an identical form (see Dollo's law).[121][122]

Natural selection within a population for a trait that can vary across a range of values, such as height, can be categorised into three different types. The first is directional selection, which is a shift in the average value of a trait over timefor example, organisms slowly getting taller.[123] Secondly, disruptive selection is selection for extreme trait values and often results in two different values becoming most common, with selection against the average value. This would be when either short or tall organisms had an advantage, but not those of medium height. Finally, in stabilising selection there is selection against extreme trait values on both ends, which causes a decrease in variance around the average value and less diversity.[117][124] This would, for example, cause organisms to slowly become all the same height.

A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.[125] Traits that evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent among males of several animal species. Although sexually favoured, traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls, large body size and bright colours often attract predation, which compromises the survival of individual males.[126][127] This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these hard-to-fake, sexually selected traits.[128]

Natural selection most generally makes nature the measure against which individuals and individual traits, are more or less likely to survive. "Nature" in this sense refers to an ecosystem, that is, a system in which organisms interact with every other element, physical as well as biological, in their local environment. Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, defined an ecosystem as: "Any unit that includes all of the organisms...in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity and material cycles (ie: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system."[129] Each population within an ecosystem occupies a distinct niche, or position, with distinct relationships to other parts of the system. These relationships involve the life history of the organism, its position in the food chain and its geographic range. This broad understanding of nature enables scientists to delineate specific forces which, together, comprise natural selection.

Natural selection can act at different levels of organisation, such as genes, cells, individual organisms, groups of organisms and species.[130][131][132] Selection can act at multiple levels simultaneously.[133] An example of selection occurring below the level of the individual organism are genes called transposons, which can replicate and spread throughout a genome.[134] Selection at a level above the individual, such as group selection, may allow the evolution of cooperation, as discussed below.[135]

In addition to being a major source of variation, mutation may also function as a mechanism of evolution when there are different probabilities at the molecular level for different mutations to occur, a process known as mutation bias.[136] If two genotypes, for example one with the nucleotide G and another with the nucleotide A in the same position, have the same fitness, but mutation from G to A happens more often than mutation from A to G, then genotypes with A will tend to evolve.[137] Different insertion vs. deletion mutation biases in different taxa can lead to the evolution of different genome sizes.[138][139] Developmental or mutational biases have also been observed in morphological evolution.[140][141] For example, according to the phenotype-first theory of evolution, mutations can eventually cause the genetic assimilation of traits that were previously induced by the environment.[142][143]

Mutation bias effects are superimposed on other processes. If selection would favor either one out of two mutations, but there is no extra advantage to having both, then the mutation that occurs the most frequently is the one that is most likely to become fixed in a population.[144][145] Mutations leading to the loss of function of a gene are much more common than mutations that produce a new, fully functional gene. Most loss of function mutations are selected against. But when selection is weak, mutation bias towards loss of function can affect evolution.[146] For example, pigments are no longer useful when animals live in the darkness of caves, and tend to be lost.[147] This kind of loss of function can occur because of mutation bias, and/or because the function had a cost, and once the benefit of the function disappeared, natural selection leads to the loss. Loss of sporulation ability in Bacillus subtilis during laboratory evolution appears to have been caused by
mutation bias, rather than natural selection against the cost of maintaining sporulation ability.[148] When there is no selection for loss of function, the speed at which loss evolves depends more on the mutation rate than it does on the effective population size,[149] indicating that it is driven more by mutation bias than by genetic drift. In parasitic organisms, mutation bias leads to selection pressures as seen in Ehrlichia. Mutations are biased towards antigenic variants in outer-membrane proteins.

Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles are subject to sampling error.[150] As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward randomly (in a random walk). This drift halts when an allele eventually becomes fixed, either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate some alleles from a population due to chance alone. Even in the absence of selective forces, genetic drift can cause two separate populations that began with the same genetic structure to drift apart into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.[151]

It is usually difficult to measure the relative importance of selection and neutral processes, including drift.[152] The comparative importance of adaptive and non-adaptive forces in driving evolutionary change is an area of current research.[153]

The neutral theory of molecular evolution proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result of the fixation of neutral mutations by genetic drift.[22] Hence, in this model, most genetic changes in a population are the result of constant mutation pressure and genetic drift.[154] This form of the neutral theory is now largely abandoned, since it does not seem to fit the genetic variation seen in nature.[155][156] However, a more recent and better-supported version of this model is the nearly neutral theory, where a mutation that would be effectively neutral in a small population is not necessarily neutral in a large population.[117] Other alternative theories propose that genetic drift is dwarfed by other stochastic forces in evolution, such as genetic hitchhiking, also known as genetic draft.[150][157][158]

The time for a neutral allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller populations.[159] The number of individuals in a population is not critical, but instead a measure known as the effective population size.[160] The effective population is usually smaller than the total population since it takes into account factors such as the level of inbreeding and the stage of the lifecycle in which the population is the smallest.[160] The effective population size may not be the same for every gene in the same population.[161]

Recombination allows alleles on the same strand of DNA to become separated. However, the rate of recombination is low (approximately two events per chromosome per generation). As a result, genes close together on a chromosome may not always be shuffled away from each other and genes that are close together tend to be inherited together, a phenomenon known as linkage.[162] This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together on a single chromosome compared to expectations, which is called their linkage disequilibrium. A set of alleles that is usually inherited in a group is called a haplotype. This can be important when one allele in a particular haplotype is strongly beneficial: natural selection can drive a selective sweep that will also cause the other alleles in the haplotype to become more common in the population; this effect is called genetic hitchhiking or genetic draft.[163] Genetic draft caused by the fact that some neutral genes are genetically linked to others that are under selection can be partially captured by an appropriate effective population size.[157]

Gene flow involves the exchange of genes between populations and between species.[109] The presence or absence of gene flow fundamentally changes the course of evolution. Due to the complexity of organisms, any two completely isolated populations will eventually evolve genetic incompatibilities through neutral processes, as in the Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model, even if both populations remain essentially identical in terms of their adaptation to the environment.

If genetic differentiation between populations develops, gene flow between populations can introduce traits or alleles which are disadvantageous in the local population and this may lead to organisms within these populations evolving mechanisms that prevent mating with genetically distant populations, eventually resulting in the appearance of new species. Thus, exchange of genetic information between individuals is fundamentally important for the development of the biological species concept.

During the development of the modern synthesis, Sewall Wright developed his shifting balance theory, which regarded gene flow between partially isolated populations as an important aspect of adaptive evolution.[164] However, recently there has been substantial criticism of the importance of the shifting balance theory.[165]

Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behaviour of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioural and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by cooperating with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually beneficial symbiosis. In the longer term, evolution produces new species through splitting ancestral populations of organisms into new groups that cannot or will not interbreed.

These outcomes of evolution are distinguished based on time scale as macroevolution versus microevolution. Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, in particular speciation and extinction; whereas microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes within a species or population, in particular shifts in gene frequency and adaptation.[166] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[167] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental onethe difference is simply the time involved.[168] However, in macroevolution, the traits of the entire species may be important. For instance, a large amount of variation among individuals allows a species to rapidly adapt to new habitats, lessening the chance of it going extinct, while a wide geographic range increases the chance of speciation, by making it more likely that part of the population will become isolated. In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution might involve selection at different levelswith microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus macroevolutionary processes such as species selection acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and extinction.[170][171]

A common misconception is that evolution has goals, long-term plans, or an innate tendency for "progress," as expressed in beliefs such as orthogenesis and evolutionism; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity.[172][173][174] Although complex species have evolved, they occur as a side effect of the overall number of organisms increasing and simple forms of life still remain more common in the
biosphere.[175] For example, the overwhelming majority of species are microscopic prokaryotes, which form about half the world's biomass despite their small size,[176] and constitute the vast majority of Earth's biodiversity.[177] Simple organisms have therefore been the dominant form of life on Earth throughout its history and continue to be the main form of life up to the present day, with complex life only appearing more diverse because it is more noticeable.[178] Indeed, the evolution of microorganisms is particularly important to modern evolutionary research, since their rapid reproduction allows the study of experimental evolution and the observation of evolution and adaptation in real time.[179][180]

Adaptation is the process that makes organisms better suited to their habitat.[181][182] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a trait that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass. By using the term adaptation for the evolutionary process and adaptive trait for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished. Adaptations are produced by natural selection.[183] The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky:

Adaptation may cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with genetic changes causing antibiotic resistance by both modifying the target of the drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell.[187] Other striking examples are the bacteria Escherichia coli evolving the ability to use citric acid as a nutrient in a long-term laboratory experiment,[188]Flavobacterium evolving a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of nylon manufacturing,[189][190] and the soil bacterium Sphingobium evolving an entirely new metabolic pathway that degrades the synthetic pesticide pentachlorophenol.[191][192] An interesting but still controversial idea is that some adaptations might increase the ability of organisms to generate genetic diversity and adapt by natural selection (increasing organisms' evolvability).[193][194][195][196][197]

Adaptation occurs through the gradual modification of existing structures. Consequently, structures with similar internal organisation may have different functions in related organisms. This is the result of a single ancestral structure being adapted to function in different ways. The bones within bat wings, for example, are very similar to those in mice feet and primate hands, due to the descent of all these structures from a common mammalian ancestor.[199] However, since all living organisms are related to some extent,[200] even organs that appear to have little or no structural similarity, such as arthropod, squid and vertebrate eyes, or the limbs and wings of arthropods and vertebrates, can depend on a common set of homologous genes that control their assembly and function; this is called deep homology.[201][202]

During evolution, some structures may lose their original function and become vestigial structures.[203] Such structures may have little or no function in a current species, yet have a clear function in ancestral species, or other closely related species. Examples include pseudogenes,[204] the non-functional remains of eyes in blind cave-dwelling fish,[205] wings in flightless birds,[206] the presence of hip bones in whales and snakes,[198] and sexual traits in organisms that reproduce via asexual reproduction.[207] Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth,[208] the coccyx,[203] the vermiform appendix,[203] and other behavioural vestiges such as goose bumps[209][210] and primitive reflexes.[211][212][213]

However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process. One example is the African lizard Holaspis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to treean exaptation. Within cells, molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella[215] and protein sorting machinery[216] evolved by the recruitment of several pre-existing proteins that previously had different functions.[166] Another example is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.[217][218]

An area of current investigation in evolutionary developmental biology is the developmental basis of adaptations and exaptations.[219] This research addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development and how modifications of development and developmental processes produce novel features.[220] These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to produce new structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in mammals.[221] It is also possible for structures that have been lost in evolution to reappear due to changes in developmental genes, such as a mutation in chickens causing embryos to grow teeth similar to those of crocodiles.[222] It is now becoming clear that most alterations in the form of organisms are due to changes in a small set of conserved genes.[223]

Interactions between organisms can produce both conflict and cooperation. When the interaction is between pairs of species, such as a pathogen and a host, or a predator and its prey, these species can develop matched sets of adaptations. Here, the evolution of one species causes adaptations in a second species. These changes in the second species then, in turn, cause new adaptations in the first species. This cycle of selection and response is called coevolution.[224] An example is the production of tetrodotoxin in the rough-skinned newt and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in its predator, the common garter snake. In this predator-prey pair, an evolutionary arms race has produced high levels of toxin in the newt and correspondingly high levels of toxin resistance in the snake.[225]

Not all co-evolved interactions between species involve conflict.[226] Many cases of mutually beneficial interactions have evolved. For instance, an extreme cooperation exists between plants and the mycorrhizal fungi that grow on their roots and aid the plant in absorbing nutrients from the soil.[227] This is a reciprocal relationship as the plants provide the fungi with sugars from photosynthesis. Here, the fungi actually grow inside plant cells, allowing them to exchange nutrients with their hosts, while sending signals that suppress the plant immune system.[228]

Coalitions between organisms of the same species have also evolved. An extreme case is the eusociality found in social insects, such as bees, termites and ants, where sterile insects feed and guard the small number of organisms in a colony that are able to reproduce. On an even smaller scale, the somatic cells that make up the body of an animal limit their reproduction so they can maintain a stable organism, which then supports a small number of the animal's germ cells to produce offspring. Here, somatic cells respond to specific signals that instruct them whether to grow, remain as they are, or die. If cells ignore these signals and multiply inappropriately, their uncontrolled growth
causes cancer.[229]

Such cooperation within species may have evolved through the process of kin selection, which is where one organism acts to help raise a relative's offspring.[230] This activity is selected for because if the helping individual contains alleles which promote the helping activity, it is likely that its kin will also contain these alleles and thus those alleles will be passed on.[231] Other processes that may promote cooperation include group selection, where cooperation provides benefits to a group of organisms.[232]

Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species.[233]

There are multiple ways to define the concept of "species." The choice of definition is dependent on the particularities of the species concerned.[234] For example, some species concepts apply more readily toward sexually reproducing organisms while others lend themselves better toward asexual organisms. Despite the diversity of various species concepts, these various concepts can be placed into one of three broad philosophical approaches: interbreeding, ecological and phylogenetic.[235] The Biological Species Concept (BSC) is a classic example of the interbreeding approach. Defined by Ernst Mayr in 1942, the BSC states that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."[236] Despite its wide and long-term use, the BSC like others is not without controversy, for example because these concepts cannot be applied to prokaryotes,[237] and this is called the species problem.[234] Some researchers have attempted a unifying monistic definition of species, while others adopt a pluralistic approach and suggest that there may be different ways to logically interpret the definition of a species.[234][235]

Barriers to reproduction between two diverging sexual populations are required for the populations to become new species. Gene flow may slow this process by spreading the new genetic variants also to the other populations. Depending on how far two species have diverged since their most recent common ancestor, it may still be possible for them to produce offspring, as with horses and donkeys mating to produce mules.[238] Such hybrids are generally infertile. In this case, closely related species may regularly interbreed, but hybrids will be selected against and the species will remain distinct. However, viable hybrids are occasionally formed and these new species can either have properties intermediate between their parent species, or possess a totally new phenotype.[239] The importance of hybridisation in producing new species of animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals,[240] with the gray tree frog being a particularly well-studied example.[241]

Speciation has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[242] In sexually reproducing organisms, speciation results from reproductive isolation followed by genealogical divergence. There are four mechanisms for speciation. The most common in animals is allopatric speciation, which occurs in populations initially isolated geographically, such as by habitat fragmentation or migration. Selection under these conditions can produce very rapid changes in the appearance and behaviour of organisms.[243][244] As selection and drift act independently on populations isolated from the rest of their species, separation may eventually produce organisms that cannot interbreed.[245]

The second mechanism of speciation is peripatric speciation, which occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment. This differs from allopatric speciation in that the isolated populations are numerically much smaller than the parental population. Here, the founder effect causes rapid speciation after an increase in inbreeding increases selection on homozygotes, leading to rapid genetic change.[246]

The third mechanism of speciation is parapatric speciation. This is similar to peripatric speciation in that a small population enters a new habitat, but differs in that there is no physical separation between these two populations. Instead, speciation results from the evolution of mechanisms that reduce gene flow between the two populations.[233] Generally this occurs when there has been a drastic change in the environment within the parental species' habitat. One example is the grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, which can undergo parapatric speciation in response to localised metal pollution from mines.[247] Here, plants evolve that have resistance to high levels of metals in the soil. Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produced a gradual change in the flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, which eventually produced complete reproductive isolation. Selection against hybrids between the two populations may cause reinforcement, which is the evolution of traits that promote mating within a species, as well as character displacement, which is when two species become more distinct in appearance.[248]

Finally, in sympatric speciation species diverge without geographic isolation or changes in habitat. This form is rare since even a small amount of gene flow may remove genetic differences between parts of a population.[249] Generally, sympatric speciation in animals requires the evolution of both genetic differences and non-random mating, to allow reproductive isolation to evolve.[250]

One type of sympatric speciation involves crossbreeding of two related species to produce a new hybrid species. This is not common in animals as animal hybrids are usually sterile. This is because during meiosis the homologous chromosomes from each parent are from different species and cannot successfully pair. However, it is more common in plants because plants often double their number of chromosomes, to form polyploids.[251] This allows the chromosomes from each parental species to form matching pairs during meiosis, since each parent's chromosomes are represented by a pair already.[252] An example of such a speciation event is when the plant species Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis arenosa crossbred to give the new species Arabidopsis suecica.[253] This happened about 20,000 years ago,[254] and the speciation process has been repeated in the laboratory, which allows the study of the genetic mechanisms involved in this process.[255] Indeed, chromosome doubling within a species may be a common cause of reproductive isolation, as half the doubled chromosomes will be unmatched when breeding with undoubled organisms.[256]

Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[257] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.[170]

Extinction is the disappearance of an entire species. Extinction is not an unusual event, as species regularly appear through speciation and disappear through extinction.[258] Nearly all animal and plant species that have lived on Earth are now extinct,[259] and extinction appear
s to be the ultimate fate of all species.[260] These extinctions have happened continuously throughout the history of life, although the rate of extinction spikes in occasional mass extinction events.[261] The CretaceousPaleogene extinction event, during which the non-avian dinosaurs became extinct, is the most well-known, but the earlier PermianTriassic extinction event was even more severe, with approximately 96% of all marine species driven to extinction.[261] The Holocene extinction event is an ongoing mass extinction associated with humanity's expansion across the globe over the past few thousand years. Present-day extinction rates are 1001000 times greater than the background rate and up to 30% of current species may be extinct by the mid 21st century.[262] Human activities are now the primary cause of the ongoing extinction event;[263]global warming may further accelerate it in the future.[264]

The role of extinction in evolution is not very well understood and may depend on which type of extinction is considered.[261] The causes of the continuous "low-level" extinction events, which form the majority of extinctions, may be the result of competition between species for limited resources (the competitive exclusion principle).[66] If one species can out-compete another, this could produce species selection, with the fitter species surviving and the other species being driven to extinction.[131] The intermittent mass extinctions are also important, but instead of acting as a selective force, they drastically reduce diversity in a nonspecific manner and promote bursts of rapid evolution and speciation in survivors.[265]

-4500

-4000

-3500

-3000

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

The Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.[266][267][268] The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago,[7][269] during the Eoarchean Era after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean Eon. Microbial mat fossils have been found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone in Western Australia.[12][13][14] Other early physical evidence of a biogenic substance is graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[11] as well as "remains of biotic life" found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia.[8][9] According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth then it could be common in the universe."[8]

More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species,[270] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.[16][17] Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million,[18] of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.[19]

Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[5] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[271] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[272] and the assembly of simple cells.[273]

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[200][274] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[275] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groupssimilar to a family tree.[276] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.[277][278]

Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.[279] By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry.

More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.[280] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.[281] For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genomes and analysing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.[282]

Prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 34 billion years ago.[284][285] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organisation occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[286] The eukaryotic cells emerged between 1.62.7 billion years ago. The next major change in cell structure came when bacteria were engulfed by eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[287][288] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent coevolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[289] Another engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[290]

The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[284][291] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[292] In January 2016, scientists reported that, about 800 million years ago, a minor genetic change in a single molecule called GK-PID may have allowed organisms to go from a single cell organism to one of many cells.[293]

Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct.[294] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[295]

Follow this link:

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Evolution | Comments Off on Evolution – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neo-Darwinism : The Current Paradigm. by Brig Klyce

Posted: at 2:36 pm

Will mutations produce wings like in angels, in a human being? If you wanted to develop a race of angels, would it be possible to select for a pair of wings? TheodosiusDobzhansky I could try! PeterMedawar (1) Charles Darwin championed the theory of common descent and evolution by natural selection among descendants with slight variations on the ancestors' features. The concept of natural selection springs from artificial selection, a procedure breeders use to enhance desired characteristics such as stamina, color, size, yield, and so forth, in animals and plants. Darwin thought that a similar process happens in nature. There is nothing to disagree with here. Natural selection can bring about evolution in a fashion similar to artificial selection. But animal breeders and plant breeders have always known that artificial selection has limits. Wholly new characteristics never emerge from artificial selection; they will never breed a dog with antlers. The same kind of limit applies to all natural selection operating on the available genetic material. Genetics Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do. Lynn Margulis (2) Darwin actually knew very little about genetics. The great pioneer of that field was Gregor Mendel, whose work was contemporary with Darwin's. Now the theory of evolution incorporates Mendel's genetics into Darwin's framework; the combined theory was called "neo-Darwinism." (Recently, that cumbersome term is being replaced by the simpler "Darwinism".)

According to this paradigm, evolution is driven by chance. Chance mutations affect one or a few nucleotides of DNA per occurrence. Bigger changes come from recombination, a genetic process in which longer strands of DNA are swapped, transferred, or doubled. These two processes, mutation and recombination, create new meaning in DNA by lucky accidents. According to the prevailing paradigm, this is the mechanism behind evolution.

One problem with this story is that it is implausible. It is analogous to saying that a great work of literature such as Moby Dick could emerge from lesser preexisting books, if there were enough typos and swapping of paragraphs along the way. The trouble is, when this process is actually attempted with text, it never succeeds. Only with guidance can random processes lead to meaningful sentences or paragraphs. But plausibility in the current paradigm of evolution is apparently unnecessary. We are told by Richard Dawkins, "The general lesson we should learn is never to use human judgment in assessing such matters" (3).

Ordinary people are under the impression that there are examples in nature which prove that chance mutation and recombination can create new meaning in genetic code new genes. Yet the alleged examples of the phenomenon do not actually exemplify it. Consider the ability of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Salvador Luria and Max Delbrck proved in 1943 that the resistant bacteria descended from preexisting strains; the genes for the resistance were already available in the gene pool. Although some have disputed this interpretation of their experiments, it is now well established. And today we know that bacteria often acquire whole new genes conferring resistance to antibiotics; the genes are imported on "resistance plasmids" (3.5).

Another example of similar "evolution" in eukaryotic cells is described in Renato Dulbecco's The Design of Life. This time the genes for the new characteristic are already present in the organism (4):

The study of this phenomenon has uncovered an amazing organization in the parasite's DNA. Radioactive probes ... have revealed that a hundred or more genes are devoted to coat variation, each gene specifying one kind of coat molecule.... Only one is active at a time.

The moth that has evolved to blend in with the sooty walls and treetrunks of modern industrial cities is another example of evolution in our time. Again, the genes for darker coloring in the moth were already available in the gene pool. Yes, there are a few documented examples in which a simple mutation in a bacterium brings about antibiotic resistance, but in these cases it does so by reducing or eliminating the affected gene's function, not by creating a new function. Among viruses, mutations can even alter a coating protein and thereby temporarily disguise the virus (4.5). But again, no new function is created. Such mutations could not drive the evolutionary progress we observe in the fossil record.

Of course, there are many examples of genes that have mutated slightly in the course of evolution without losing their original functions. And other examples, fewer in number, apparently indicate that genes may mutate slightly and acquire different but closely related functions. The globin family of genes are in this category. And in a third category, a handful of examples may indicate that a gene mutates slightly and acquires a wholly new function. These finally seem to be examples in which mutations create new meaning, but we are not sure this third account is accurate. The number of changed essential nucleotides in new genes that supposedly arose this way is still in the dozens at least, whereas the number of possible genes that would differ from a given average-size gene by only half-a-dozen essential nucleotides is enormous, on the order of 10^14. Blindly traversing even this short distance in sequence space so large requires incredible luck.

(Genetics and Fitness Landscapes) Epistasis and the Structure of Fitness Landscapes... by Franois Blanquart and Thomas Bataillon, doi:10.1534/genetics.115.182691, Genetics, 01 Jun 2016. Fisher's model was ...often unable to explain the full structure of fitness landscapes. 01 Jun 2016: ...The mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a ...transposable element.... Toward a prospective molecular evolution by Xionglei He, Li Liu, doi:10.1126/science.aaf7543, Science, 13 May 2016. Two studies ...characterize the in vivo fitness landscape of two RNA genes. ...Although the number of mutants they examined is still a small fraction of all possible variants of the genes, most of the possible genotypes that differ from the wild-type by one or two point mutations were characterized. Thus, a high-quality local fitness landscape of a gene has been constructed. The fitness landscape of a tRNA gene by Chuan Li et al., doi:10.1126/science.aae0568, Science, online 14 Apr 2016. Approximately 1% of single point mutations in the gene are beneficial, while 42% are deleterious. 4 Sep 2015: ...Thousands of transcripts ...which are likely to have originated de novo.... 4 Jan 2016. Catarina Gadelha et al., "Membrane domains and flag
ellar pocket boundaries are influenced by the cytoskeleton in African trypanosomes" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0909289106, p17425-17430 v106, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 13 Oct 2009. Parasite breaks its own DNA to avoid detection, The Rockefeller University, 15 Apr 2009. 28 Aug 2007: Varying environments can speed up evolution. [mentions Fitness Landscapes.] Thanat Chookajorn et al., "Epigenetic memory at malaria virulence genes" [abstract], 10.1073/pnas.0609084103, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 5 Jan 2007. "The malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum can switch its variant surface proteins ...to evade the host immune response. ...The gene family is enormous with a virtually unlimited number of members. ...Control of var gene transcription and antigenic variation is associated with a chromatin memory...." 26 Sep 2005: Common bacteria share an infinite gene pool?! 16 Feb 2005: Fitness Landscapes. 2003, May 11: Computer model evolves complex functions? [mentions Fitness Landscapes.] 2003, March 25: Here Be Dragons, by David W. Koerner and Simon Levay. [mentions Fitness Landscapes.] ...African trypanosome source of scientific insight, The Rockefeller University, 25 Nov 2002.

The April 15, 1997 issue of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA contains a report with strong evidence sequence similarities linking two genes with different functions in a common Antarctic fish. One gene codes for trypsinogen, an enzyme produced in the pancreas. The other codes for a protein called antifreeze glycoprotein (AFGP) that keeps the fish's blood from freezing.

The related sequences are so similar that the biologists, from the University of Illinois, Urbana, date the divergence of the sequences as only five to 14 million years ago. This timing coincides with the independently estimated time when the Antarctic Ocean was frozen. "Selective pressure" would have favored the creation of an antifreeze gene then. The report makes a strong case that the antifreeze gene evolved from the trypsinogen gene by a series of steps including whole gene duplication; the deletion, insertion, duplication, and amplification of smaller sequences; and a frameshift mutation.

It is possible to estimate the likelihood of creating a new gene this way. One could estimate the actual rate at which the steps listed above occur in the fish germline cells and the fish population at the time when the Antarctic Ocean was freezing. From there one could straightforwardly calculate the approximate number of trials of new genes that could have occurred, during a reasonable time window, to produce an antifreeze protein gene in the fish. One could also estimate the number of different actual genes that would code for antifreeze proteins. Other work by the same authors in the same issue (8) makes this estimation seem possible. Finally, a mathematician could, with little trouble, count the number of possible different genes that could be created from the trypsinogen gene and other possible precursor genes by the steps listed above. These estimates would enable one to calculate the probability that an antifreeze gene would be found by trial and error in the time available.

The last estimate, however, turns out to be lethal to our chances. The number of possible different genes that could be created by only a handful of steps from the list above is enormous. For example, consider a gene of 2,500 nucleotides, allowing a 75% error rate (625 essential nucleotides.) The number of possible different genes that could be created by deleting a single essential nucleotide and inserting it elsewhere in the same gene, five successive times, is 10^28. When sequences for insertion into the target gene can be any length, and can come from any of thousands of other genes, the possibilities quickly approach the theoretical maximum in this example 4^625 or about 10^370. So the proposed mechanism does not increase the probability of arriving at a wholly new gene by chance. It's still monkeys writing Shakespeare, only now they have word processors with "cut and paste" functions.

The authors are aware of this problem and postulate other roles for genetic intermediates between the two genes. However, they seem to realize that this speculation is inadequate, because they conclude [the second article] by saying, "The selection of an appropriate permutation of three codons... was likely shaped by the structural specificity required for antifreeze ice interaction to take place." This sounds like teleology.

After the careful analysis by Chen et al., one might understand if a neo-Darwinists lost patience at this point in the discussion and simply asserted that it must have happened as they describe. Any reasonable person would admit that genetic sequences may gradually diverge over time, as in the antifreeze gene example. Cosmic Ancestry does not dispute that genetic sequences can gradually diverge over time, and that genetic recombination occurs. But for the discovery of lengthy new sequences with new meaning, the math in the example still doesn't work. And a model for this process in text, without guidance, will not succeed.

If the antifreeze gene was composed by the process Chen et al. describe, perhaps antifreeze activity is so non-specific that "almost any gene will do," as considered above. But if the precise antifreeze sequence was required (allowing only normal error tolerance), the composition process would have to have been guided somehow. Neo-Darwinism allows guidance by a chain of hypothetical intermediate steps (but not by teleology). Cosmic Ancestry would explain such guidance only by other instructions already in the genome; however, this concept is undeveloped.

(Antifreeze Protein Genes) Thomas J. Neara et al., "Ancient climate change, antifreeze, and the evolutionary diversification of Antarctic fishes" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.111516910, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 13 Feb 2012. Cheng Deng et al., "Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflict" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1007883107, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 29 Nov 2010. "We found that an SAS gene, having both sialic acid synthase and rudimentary ice-binding activities, became duplicated." 12 Nov 2006: The Making of the Fittest, by geneticist Sean B. Carroll, W. W. Norton, 2006. Evolutionary Scrap-heap Challenge..., a Reply forwarded by Stan Franklin, 17 Apr 2006. 7 May 2004: Ultraconserved elements. 2003, November 20: In mammals, CNGs are more numerous and better conserved than genes a hint of possible other instructions already in the genome. 1999, October 21: A blood protein arose from a digestive enzyme.

Evidence from fossi
ls does not bear out Darwin's theory of gradual change. Instead, species remain relatively unchanged for long periods, and then suddenly, new kinds arise. Many bacteria today have apparently changed very little since they first appeared. Some archaebacterial species appear to be as old as life on Earth; they haven't evolved very far in almost four billion years. We know that bacteria were the only inhabitants of the earth until about 1.7 billion years ago. Apparently, no major evolutionary developments (multicellularity, cell specialization, etc.) happened among the bacteria for the first two billion years of life more than half of the time life has existed on Earth.

By contrast, the entire Cambrian Explosion of about 570 million years ago took only five to nine million years (11). All kinds of multicelled creatures, in astonishing variety, seemed to come at once out of nowhere (12). On the cover of Time we read this synopsis of the Cambrian Explosion: "New discoveries show that life as we know it began in an amazing biological frenzy that changed the planet almost overnight" (13).

Similar discontinuities can be seen on a finer scale in the individual histories of species. In fact, the sudden appearance of new kinds of creatures, without evidence of intermediate kinds, is more the rule than the exception. Examples of intermediate kinds, such as the dog-sized Mesohippus that preceded the horse are actually quite rare. Stephen Jay Gould calls this discrepancy between the theory (gradualism) and the evidence (big steps) the paleontologists' "trade secret."

Today there is still considerable discord over punctuated equilibrium. How real is stasis (the period without appreciable change), how gradual is punctuation, and how can neo-Darwinists account for them? One proposal is "species sorting" or "species selection." In general, the new idea is that big evolutionary steps occur gradually in small, isolated populations. When the evolutionary steps are complete, the small population with its new advantage quickly expands and replaces the bigger population. Thus, in the geological record the change looks instantaneous. This solution has some appeal, but it offers little more by way of explanation than that gradual evolution always takes place somewhere out of sight. In 1931, J.B.S. Haldane foresaw this problem. "The paleontologist can always postulate a slow evolution in some area hitherto unexplored geologically, followed by migration into known areas" (14). Perhaps punctuated equilibrium is a clue that the genetic mechanism underlying evolutionary progress is altogether different from the one currently in favor.

(Punctuated Equilibrium) Can Population Genetics Adapt to Rapid Evolution? by Philipp W. Messer, Stephen P. Ellner and Nelson G. Hairston Jr., doi:10.1016/j.tig.2016.04.005, Trends in Genetics, online 13 May 2016. The time-rate scaling of phenotypic evolution suggests that selection on phenotypes is often fluctuting in direction, allowing phenotypes to respond rapidly to environmental fluctuations while remaining within relatively constant bounds over longer periods. What sparked the Cambrian explosion? by Douglas Fox, doi:10.1038/530268a, Nature, 18 Feb 2016. J. William Schopf et al., "Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution's null hypothesis" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1419241112, PNAS, online 2 Feb 2015; and commentary: Scientists discover organism that hasnt evolved in more than 2 billion years, by Stuart Wolpert, UCLA Newsroom, 2 Feb 2015. M. Paul Smith and David A. T. Harper, "Causes of the Cambrian Explosion" [summary], doi:10.1126/science.1239450, p 355-1356 v 341, Science, 20 Sep 2013. Erik A. Sperling et al., "Oxygen, ecology, and the Cambrian radiation of animals" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1312778110, p13446-13451 v110, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 13 Aug 2013. "...Providing an integrated explanation for both the pattern and timing of Cambrian animal radiation." Josef C. Uyeda et al., "The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1014503108, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 23 Aug 2011. "The best-fitting model to explain this pattern is a model that combines rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales." 18 Apr 2011: There is no gradualism in the fossil record Lynn Margulis 7 Jan 2009: Latent evolutionary potential was realized soon after environmental limitations were removed. 15 Jan 2008: Did meteors cause the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event? 4 Jan 2008: A sudden diversification of life..., if confirmed,... reinforces the idea that major evolutionary innovations occurred in bursts. Gene Hunt, "The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0704088104, p18404-18408 v104, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 20 Nov (online 14 Nov) 2007. "The rarity with which directional evolution was observed in this study corroborates a key claim of punctuated equilibria...." Antonis Rokas et al., "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time" [abstract], 10.1126/science.1116759, p 1933-1938 v 310, Science, 23 Dec 2006. "The differences ...suggest that the early history of metazoans was a radiation compressed in time, a finding that is in agreement with paleontological inferences." Ancient crustacean raises new questions, by Ivan Noble, BBC News Online, 19 July 2001: 511 million-year-old fossil supports Cambrian expolsion. Carol Kaesuk Yoon, "Fossil Findings May Force Revisions in the History of Life" [text], The New York Times, 22 May 2001. "The real peak of life's diversity may have come and gone more than 400 million years ago." 1999, November 3: Fossils of primitive fish have been found in the Lower Cambrian.

Richard Dawkins writes that the eye could evolve easily, by chance, in tiny steps. In an article entitled "The Eye in a Twinkling," he discusses how improvements of only one percent each could lead, in only some 400,000 generations, to the eye of a fish (15). He says eyes could have evolved many times, as they must have, because there are about 40 different kinds of eyes.

If eyes have evolved as Dawkins describes, by chance, then the genetic program to coordinate all the embryological steps in the growth of an eye (of each type) would evolve only after the genes for the steps themselves had evolved. Yet recently, scientists learned that the same gene coordinating the embryological steps in eye-making works in wasps and mice! The coordinating gene must have come first. "The observation that mammals and insects, which have evolved
separately for more than 500 million years, share the same master control gene for eye morphogenesis indicates that the genetic control mechanisms for development are much more universal than anticipated" (16). In March, 1997, a group of scientists at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Maryland and the University of Basel in Switzerland reported that a gene controlling eye development is shared by fruitflies, mice, and squid (17). These startling developments have made theorists reconsider how eyes evolved (18).

A coordinating gene that works the same way in very different animals is not confined to the eye. Homeotic genes in Drosophila (the fruitflies often used to study genetics) are known to control the expression of at least twenty of the fly's genes. Homeotic genes can be identified by the presence in them of a sequence 180 nucleotides long called a homeobox. "The big surprise concerning homeoboxes came in 1984 with the discovery of a homeobox, very similar to the Drosophila ones in a vertebrate, the toad Xenopus laevis. Soon afterwards the first mammalian homeoboxes were located..." (19). Coordinating genes appear to be standardized across a broad range of multicelled animals. And in March, 1997, biologists from the John Innes Centre for Plant Science Research in Norwich, England and Caltech found impressive similarities between homeotic genes in the fruitfly and a flowering plant (20).

It is difficult for neo-Darwinism to explain the appearance of embryological coordinating genes before the appearance of the embryological steps they coordinate. It's as if the blueprints for assembly-line manufacturing plants were on hand before the invention of assembly-line manufacturing.

(Coordinating Genes) 26 Aug 2009: "The Origin of Life on Earth" in a Scientific American Special Issue: "Understanding Origins". Wayne L. Davies et al., "Into the blue: Gene duplication and loss underlie color vision adaptations in a deep-sea chimaera, the elephant shark Callorhinchus milii" [abstract], doi:10.1101/gr.084509.108, p 415-426 v 19, Genome Research, Mar (online 4 Feb) 2009. 25 Jun 2008: Vertebrate and jellyfish eyes use similar genes. 21 May 2005: The key to early eye evolution? A highly conserved mechanism ...points to a common evolutionary origin of animal eyes. "The mechanisms used to control nerve cell formation in the zebrafish and fruitfly eyes thus appear to be exact copies of each other." Carl Neumann, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Tuebingen, 22 September 2000.

"Convergent evolution" has been observed since the time of Darwin. It is the name given to apparent coincidences in evolution, such as the physical similarity between sharks (fish) and dolphins (mammals), or the parallelism in the cochlea of birds and mammals. A striking example is the resemblance between the Tasmanian wolf, which is an Australian marsupial "dog," and mammalian dogs common on other continents. Although the two would be very far apart on a phylogenetic tree, it takes a skilled zoologist to distinguish them by anatomical features like the skeleton. And examples of convergence also appear at the molecular level, as in similar antibody proteins carried by camels and nurse sharks. As The New York Times observes, "The more scientists look, the more examples of convergence they find" (21).

Neo-Darwinism accounts for the phenomenon by supposing that evolutionary options are often severely restricted by circumstances. "Convergences keep happening because organisms keep wanting to do similar things, and there are only so many ways of doing them," says molecular biologist Rudolf A. Raff of Indiana University (22). So the phenomenon has been named "the principle of convergence" or "convergent evolution." But naming the problem doesn't mean it has been explained. The renowned Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould believes that slight differences in the course of evolution should lead to totally different outcomes. If so, convergence is baffling. A discerning witness is justified in wondering if neo-Darwinism adequately explains convergence, or if another theory might account for it better.

(Convergent Evolution) Sishuo Wang et al., "Long-Lasting Gene Conversion Shapes the Convergent Evolution of the Critical Methanogenesis Genes," doi:10.1534/g3.115.020180, G3, online 16 Sep 2015. M. Sabrina Pankey et al., "Predictable transcriptome evolution in the convergent and complex bioluminescent organs of squid" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1416574111, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 4 Nov 2014. "Unless there are strong constraints, the probability of complex organs originating multiple times through similar trajectories should be vanishingly small." 27 Jun 2014: The same genes were recruited within the different species to make evolutionarily new structures that function similarly. Sylvain Aubry, Steven Kelly et al., "Deep Evolutionary Comparison of Gene Expression Identifies Parallel Recruitment of Trans-Factors in Two Independent Origins of C4 Photosynthesis" [html], doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004365, 10(6): e1004365, PLoS Genet, online 5 Jun 2014. Joe Parker et al., "Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals" [html], doi:10.1038/nature12511, Nature, online 4 Sep 2013; and commentary: Queen Mary scientists uncover genetic similarities between bats and dolphins, Queen Mary University of London, 4 Sep 2013. Nicols Frankel et al., "Conserved regulatory architecture underlies parallel genetic changes and convergent phenotypic evolution" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1207715109, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 29 Nov 2012. Mario Ventura et al., "Gorilla genome structural variation reveals evolutionary parallelisms with chimpanzee" [abstract], doi:10.1101/gr.124461.111, p1640-1649 v21, Genome Research, Oct 2011. Flajnik MF, Deschacht N, Muyldermans S, "A Case Of Convergence: Why Did a Simple Alternative to Canonical Antibodies Arise in Sharks and Camels?" [html], doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001120, 9(8): e1001120, PLoS Biol, online 2 Aug 2011. S. Hollis Woodard, Brielle J. Fischman et al., "Genes involved in convergent evolution of eusociality in bees" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1103457108, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 11 Apr 2011. And commentary: The genes that make a bee sociable by Ewen Callaway, Nature.com, 11 Apr 2011. "Now, a genomic study of different bee species suggests that even when insects evolve eusociality independently, they often use the same genes and molecular pathways." Naomi J. Brown et al., "Independent and Parallel Recruitment of Preexisting Mechanisms Underlying C4 Photosynthesis" [abstract], doi:10.1126/science.1201248, p1436-1439 v331, Science, 18 Mar 2011. David B
. Wake et al., "Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Process and Mechanism of Evolution" [abstract], doi:10.1126/science.1188545, p1032-1035 v331, Science, 25 Feb 2011. "Common developmental genetic mechanisms have been shown to underlie features that long were considered classic examples of convergent evolution." Homoplasy: A Good Thread to Pull to Understand the Evolutionary Ball of Yarn, Press Release 11-041, National Science Foundation, 24 Feb 2011. "...The evolution of eyes, which evolved many times in different groups of organisms--from invertebrates to mammals--all of which share an identical genetic code for their eyes." John J. Wiens, "Re-evolution of lost mandibular teeth in frogs after more than 200 million years, and re-evaluating Dollo's law" [abstract], doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01221.x, Evolution, online 27 Jan 2011. ...Re-Evolution Of Lost Teeth In Frogs After More Than 200 Million Years, Stony Brook University, 7 Feb 2011. 18 Jan 2011: Many features appear to have originated more than once in the history of life on Earth. Julius Lukes et al., "Cascades of convergent evolution: The corresponding evolutionary histories of euglenozoans and dinoflagellates" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0901004106, p 9963-9970 v 106, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 16 Jun 2009. Todd A. Castoe et al., "Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of convergent molecular evolution" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0900233106, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 28 Apr 2009. Bastien Boussau et al., "Parallel adaptations to high temperatures in the Archaean eon" [abstract], doi:10.1038/nature07393, p 942-946 v 456, Nature, 18-25 Dec 2008. Juan C. Opazo et al., "Genomic evidence for independent origins of -like globin genes in monotremes and therian mammals" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0710531105, p 1590-1595 v 105, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 23 Jan 2008. 28 Jan 2006: Important aspects of the history of life are replicable and predictable. 16 Mar 2005: Life's Solution, by Simon Conway Morris. Spider webs untangle evolution "...The concept that chance reigns supreme may ring less true when it comes to complex behaviours." Roxanne Khamsi, News@Nature.com, 1 Nov 2004. Juan Carlos Santos et al., "Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.2133521100, p 12792-12797 v 100, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 28 Oct 2003. Moya Meredith Smith and Zerina Johanson, "Separate Evolutionary Origins of Teeth from Evidence in Fossil Jawed Vertebrates" [abstract], doi:10.1126/science.1079623, p 1235-1236 v 299, Science, 21 Feb 2003. 23 Jan 2003: Wingless stick insects have re-evolved wings, perhaps many times. Poles apart, molars together "The teeth that might have allowed mammals to develop ...into today's relative giants arose twice on different continents." Juliette Shackleton, Nature Science Update, 4 January 2001.

Ernst Mayr's 1988 classic, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, asks the question, "Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?" (24). The issue came into sharper focus after Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" into the discussion of evolution. Microevolution would occur during stasis, and macroevolution at the punctuation points. This scenario is inconsistent with neo-Darwinian gradualism, according to which macroevolution is simply cumulative microevolution over long periods of time. The question challenges standard neo-Darwinism at its heart.

In our opinion, neo-Darwinism adequately accounts for microevolution. Changes in existing allele frequencies are already known to cause microevolution such as the darkening of the English moth's wings. A single nucleotide substitution can alter a virus's protein coat into one that the host's immune system doesn't recognize. The insertion or deletion of a single nucleotide causes a nonsense mutation that would disable, for example, a promoter or repressor sequence, thereby switching other whole genetic programs off or on.

Macroevolutionary progress such as the evolution of photosynthesis, on the other hand, requires wholly new genes with lengthy new instruction sequences. Whereas a new gene can be activated by a single point mutation, as mentioned above, there is scant evidence that new genes can be composed by Darwinian random point mutations and recombination events. Examples supporting this composition method are very few and weak.

Notice the term "progress" in the preceding paragraph. Any significant advance in evolution requires new genes. But loss of function, of course, can occur without new genes. So, macroevolutionary loss of function is not hard to explain. The real question is, "Does microevolutionary progress explain macroevolutionary progress?"

An excellent example of microevolutionary progress was discovered in 1999, by geneticists and ophthalmologists at University College London. From sequences of opsin genes they have deduced a plausible way for trichromatic vision in the howler monkey to have evolved from dichromatic vision by neo-Darwinian gene duplication followed by nucleotide substitutions in one copy. Their analysis of the control regions of the genes, which are upstream of the coding regions, confirms the duplication. Interestingly, of the approximately 80 nucleotides from the coding region of the two genes that were compared, only one nucleotide was not identical. This plausible mutation causes a single amino acid substitution in the second howler opsin that changes its color sensitivity. The changed gene makes 3-color vision possible (25). In a recently discovered closely related example only two amino acid substitutions account for the blue-shifted vision of coelacanths (26).

The howler monkeys' acquisition of trichromatic vision represents evolutionary progress, unquestionably. But the same neo-Darwinian microevolutionary mechanism has not been shown to be capable of manufacturing the wholly new genes necessary for macroevolutionary progress. We believe that another source for these new genes is necessary.

(Microevolution & Macroevolution) Chris M Rands et al., "Insights into the evolution of Darwin's finches from comparative analysis of the Geospiza magnirostris genome sequence" [html], doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-95, n95 v14, BMC Genomics, 12 Feb 2013. Hiroshi Akashi et al., "Weak Selection and Protein Evolution" [abstract], doi:10.1534/genetics.112.140178, p15-31 v192, Genetics, 1 Sep 2012. 23 Feb 2012: Experimenters with a virus and its bacterial host in a quarantined system report a breakthrough. Tomohide Hiwatashi et al., "Gene conversion and purifying selection shape nucleotide
variation in gibbon L/M opsin genes" [abstract], doi:10.1186/1471-2148-11-312, v11 n312, BMC Evolutionary Biology, 22 Oct 2011. Takashi Tada et al., "Evolutionary replacement of UV vision by violet vision in fish" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0903839106, p17457-17462 v106, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 13 Oct 2009. "Mutagenesis experiments and ...computations show that the violet-sensitivity was achieved by the deletion of Phe-86...." 20 Sep 2008: Woodstock of evolution? Gerald H. Jacobs et al., "Emergence of Novel Color Vision in Mice Engineered to Express a Human Cone Photopigment" [abstract], 10.1126/science.1138838, p 1723-1725 v 315, Science, 23 Mar 2007. And commentary by Patrick Goymer, "Evolution: Colour vision for mice" [abstract], 10.1038/nrg2106, p 324-325 v 8, Nature Reviews Genetics, May 2007. 12 Nov 2006: The Making of the Fittest, by geneticist Sean B. Carroll, W. W. Norton, 2006. 23 Sep 2005: Today's protein families have been fine-tuned from ancient templates. Shozo Yokoyama and Naomi Takenaka, "The Molecular Basis of Adaptive Evolution of Squirrelfish Rhodopsins" [abstract], p 2071-2078 v 21 n 11, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Nov 2004: well-documented microevolution. 15 Jan 2004: Are normal microevolutionary processes sufficient to account for human origins? Uwe Stolz et al., "Darwinian natural selection for orange bioluminescent color in a Jamaican click beetle" [abstract], Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 17 Nov 2003: typical example of microevolution. 2003, April 7: Stephen Jay Gould's account of macroevolution, in a new Encyclopedia of Evolution.... Macroevolutionary Progress Redefined..., a new webpage, posted 4 Sep 2002.

Artificial selection never produces wholly new characteristics. Without the input of new genes, there is no evidence that natural selection does either. The notion that mutation and recombination can compose new genes is implausible. There is scant evidence that mutation and recombination can compose functional new genes that differ from any known predecessor by more than, say, a dozen essential nucleotides. The evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic cod presents problems for both Darwinism and Cosmic Ancestry. Evolution does not appear to be gradual, contrary to Darwin's firm prediction. The standard theory cannot explain why the coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species. Convergent evolution is a surprise not well-explained by neo-Darwinism. Macroevolutionary progress is not accounted for by neo-Darwinian microevolution.

Does the "Extended Synthesis" Replace or not Replace Neo-Darwinism?... by Suzan Mazur, Huffington Post, 30 Apr 2016. Evolution of stickleback in 50 years on earthquake-uplifted islands by Emily A. Lescak et al., doi:10.1073/pnas.1512020112, PNAS, 14 Dec 2015. If the findings from stickleback are generalizable to other systems, then rapid evolution in the wild may be more common than previously documented. When Fruit Flies Get Sick, Their Offspring Become More Diverse, North Carolina State University, (+Newswise), 13 Aug 2015. Kevin N. Laland et al., "The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions" [html | pdf], doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1019, Proc. R. Soc. B, 22 Aug 2015. "...It is vital that the conceptual frameworks themselves evolve in response to new data, theories and methodologies. This is not always straightforward, as habits of thought and practice are often deeply entrenched." We wish the new conceptual framework included this question: Is open-ended evolutionary innovation possible in a quarantined system? Aashiq H. Kachroo et al., "Systematic humanization of yeast genes reveals conserved functions and genetic modularity" [abstract], doi:10.1126/science.aaa0769, p 921-925 v 348, Science, 22 May 2015. 16 Jul 2015: ...Neo-Darwinism isn't falsifiable.... Peter Saunders 28 Apr 2015: Diversity-generating retroelements (DGRs) use mutagenic reverse transcription and retrohoming to generate myriad variants of a target gene. Beyond genetics: illuminating the epigenome by Merlin Crossley, The Conversation, 20 Feb 2015. Sindhuja Devanapally et al., "Double-stranded RNA made in C. elegans neurons can enter the germline and cause transgenerational gene silencing" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1423333112, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 2 Feb 2015. 15 Oct 2014: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? New Genetic 'Operating System' Facilitated Evolution of 'Bilateral' Animals, UC San Diego News Center (+PhysOrg.com), 30 Sep 2014. "They found that TRF2 is present in bilateral animals, and is absent in animals that lack bilateral symmetry, such as jellyfish, sea anemones and sponges." Bolhuis JJ, Tattersall I, Chomsky N, Berwick RC, "How Could Language Have Evolved?" [html], doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001934, 12(8): e1001934, PLoS Biol., 26 Aug 2014. "...The relatively sudden origin of language poses difficulties that may be called 'Darwin's problem.'" Anton S. Petrov et al., "Evolution of the ribosome at atomic resolution" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1407205111, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 30 Jun 2014. Evolution depends on rare chance events, "molecular time travel" experiments show, The University of Chicago Medicine (+Newswise), 19 Jun 2014. 7 Mar 2014: "Traditional evolutionary biology began in the 1930s...." Woltering JM, Noordermeer D, Leleu M, Duboule D, "Conservation and Divergence of Regulatory Strategies at Hox Loci and the Origin of Tetrapod Digits" [html], doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001773, 12(1): e1001773, PLoS Biol, 21 Jan 2014; and commentary: Mary Hoff, "A Footnote to the Evolution of Digits" [html], doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001774, 12(1): e1001774, PLoS Biol, 21 Jan 2014. "...Biologists should consider thinking in terms of regulatory circuitries rather than expression patterns when considering whether traits have arisen from a common ancestral characteristic." 20 Dec 2013: Eugene V. Koonin's book, The Logic of Chance Joana Projecto-Garcia, Chandrasekhar Natarajan et al., "Repeated elevational transitions in hemoglobin function during the evolution of Andean hummingbirds" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1315456110, p 20669-20674 v 110, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 17 Dec (online 2 Dec ) 2013. "These results demonstrate that repeated changes in biochemical phenotype involve parallelism at the molecular level...." Marc Kirschner, "Interview: Beyond Darwin: evolvability and the generation of novelty
" [html], doi:1186/1741-7007-11-110, n 110 v 11, BMC Biology, 7 Nov 2013. Darwinian evolution is clearly a good mechanism for improving things - but it is not necessarily a good mechanism for generating novelty. ...If you have processes that are already present but under suppression, then under stress you might see some of them emerge, and if you have fortuitous selection at the same time you can very quickly evolve. Evolution of new species requires few genetic changes, The University of Chicago Medicine (+Newswise), 31 Oct 2013. 2 Sep 2013: Metabolic systems ...contain a latent potential for evolutionary innovations with non-adaptive origins. 11 May 2013: ...TEs, and in particular ERVs, have contributed hundreds of thousands of novel regulatory elements to the primate lineage.... 30 Apr 2013: We don't fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level. Philip Ball Daniel W. McShea and Wim Hordijk, "Complexity by Subtraction" [abstract], doi:10.1007/s11692-013-9227-6, Evolutionary Biology, Apr 2013; and commentary: Study proposes alternative way to explain life's complexity, PhysOrg.com, 12 Apr 2013. Do plants 'veto' bad genes? by Heidi Ledford, Nature News, 8 Feb 2013. 20 Dec 2012: Evolution: A View from the 21st Century by James A. Shapiro Michael Lynch, "Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.1216130109, p18851-18856 v109 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 13 Nov (online 30 Oct) 2012. A New Theory of Early Animal Evolution, Astrobiology Magazine, 14 Oct 2012. Bruce Stillman, David Stewart and Jan Witkowski, eds., Evolution: The Molecular Landscape (Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology LXXIV), Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2009. Science Study Shows 'Promiscuous' Enzymes Still Prevalent in Metabolism, UC San Diego (also Newswise), 30 Aug 2012. Giving Ancient Life Another Chance to Evolve, Georgia Institute of Technology, 11 Jul 2012. ...Hypothesis May be Game Changer for Evolutionary Theory by Whitney Heins, The University of Tennessee, 4 Apr 2012. Evolution: This View of Life, "an online general interest magazine in which all of the content is from an evolutionary perspective. It includes content aggregated from the internet, following the example set by the Huffington Post, as well as new content generated by our staff of editors and contributing authors in eleven subject areas: biology, culture, health, arts, technology, religion, politics, mind, economy, environment, and education," Binghamton University, NY, launched Feb 2012. Ed Yong, "Yeast suggests speedy start for multicellular life" [html], doi:10.1038/nature.2012.9810, Nature, 16 Jan 2012. 10 Jan 2012: The mechanisms for this increase in complexity are incredibly simple, common occurrences Geneticist Joe Thornton Acquired Traits Can Be Inherited Via Small RNAs, Newswise, 5 Dec 2011. Cells may stray from 'central dogma' by Erika Check Hayden, doi:10.1038/news.2011.304, NatureNews, online 19 May 2011. Eric J. Hayden et al., "Cryptic genetic variation promotes rapid evolutionary adaptation in an RNA enzyme" [abstract], doi:10.1038/nature10083, p92-95 v474, Nature, 2 Jun 2011. Jeremy A. Draghi and Joshua B. Plotkin, "Molecular evolution: Hidden diversity sparks adaptation" [html], doi:10.1038/474045a, p45-46 v474, Nature, 2 Jun 2011. 18 Apr 2011: Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create Lynn Margulis 11 Jan 2011: Anomalies in mainstream evolutionary theory have prompted a major amendment to darwinism. Michael W. Gray et al., "Irremediable Complexity?" [summary], doi:10.1126/science.1198594, p920-921 v330, Science, 12 Nov 2010. "Much of the bewildering intricacy of cells could consist of originally fortuitous molecular interactions that have become more or less fixed by constructive neutral evolution." 13 Jun 2010: What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini [book review]. 12 Apr 2010: Stan Franklin forwards Michael Ruse's book review and we reply. Bob Grant, "Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?" [link: registration required], p24 v24, TheScientist, 01 Jan 2010. Hubertus J. E. Beaumont et al., "Experimental evolution of bet hedging" [abstract], doi:10.1038/nature08504, p90-93 v462, Nature, 5 Nov 2009. Ratchet-like genetic mutations make evolution irreversible, University of Oregon, 23 Sep 2009. 14 Sep 2009: If we didn't know about life we wouldn't believe it Richard Dawkins. After dinosaurs, mammals rise but their genomes get smaller, Indiana University News Room, 27 Jul 2009. 25 Jul 2009: Spermatozoa of all species can take up exogenous DNA or RNA molecules and internalize them into nuclei. 23 Jul 2009: Primate-specific genes were inserted de novo, not generated by gradual divergence from non-primate genes. The Deep Metazoan Phylogeny Project Joram Piatigorsky, Gene Sharing and Evolution: The Diversity of Protein Functions, Harvard University Press, 2007. 16 Mar 2009: ...gene transfers of various types... and other forms of acquisition of 'foreign genomes' ...are more important.... Lynn Margulis Henry Gee, Rory Howlett and Philip Campbell, "15 Evolutionary Gems" [17-page PDF], doi:10.1038/nature07740, Nature.com, online Jan 2009. Sergey Kryazhimskiy and Joshua B. Plotkin, "The Population Genetics of dN/dS" [article], doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000304, 4(12): e1000304, PLoS Genetics, online 12 Dec 2008. Daniel G. Gibson et al., "One-step assembly in yeast of 25 overlapping DNA fragments to form a complete synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium genome" [Open Access abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0811011106, p 20404-20409 v 105, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 23 Dec (online 10 Dec) 2008. 27 Nov 2008: The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin.... Andrew L. Hufton et al., "Early vertebrate whole genome duplications were predated by a period of intense genome rearrangement" [abstract], doi:10.1101/gr.080119.108, p 1582-1591 v 18, Genome Research, online 17 Sep 2008. Elizabeth Pennisi, "Deciphering the Genetics of Evolution" [link], doi:10.1126/science.321.5890.760, p 760-763 v 321, Science, 8 Aug 2008. "Powerful personalities lock horns over how the genome changes to set the stage for evolution." Ben-Yang Liao and Jianzhi Zhang, "Null mutations in human and mouse orthologs frequently result in different phenotypes" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0800387105, p 6987-6992 v 105, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 13 May (online 5 May) 2008. "...We find that >20% of human essential genes have nonessenti
al mouse orthologs." Todd A. Sangster et al., "HSP90-buffered genetic variation is common in Arabidopsis thaliana" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0712210105, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 19 Feb 2008. "...HSP90 is likely to occupy a central position in the translation of genotypic variation into phenotypic differences." Todd A. Sangster et al., "HSP90 affects the expression of genetic variation and developmental stability in quantitative traits" [abstract], doi:10.1073/pnas.0712200105, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 19 Feb 2008. Shocking Evolution Into Action, by Nicole Giese, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, 18 Feb 2008 | also on Newswise.com. "The abundance of naturally occurring genetic variation that is affected by Hsp90 was remarkable." Inheritance via RNA is the subject of a Reply from Stan Franklin, 4 Jan 2008. Committee on Revising Science and Creationism, Science, Evolution, and Creationism [link], ISBN: 0-309-10587-0, National Academies Press, 2008. 19 Dec 2007: The ancestor of earthly life was molecularly complex. Anthony Poole and David Penny, "Eukaryote evolution: Engulfed by speculation" [text], 10.1038/447913a, p 913 v 447, Nature, 21 Jun 2007. "The onus is on proponents, not sceptics, to find evidence for their theories." Exploring the Dark Matter of the Genome, Physorg.com, 15 Jun 2007. Rajkumar Sasidharan and Cyrus Chothia, "The selection of acceptable protein mutations" [abstract], 10.1073/pnas.0703737104, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 31 May 2007. "This work implies that commonly allowed mutations are selected by a set of general constraints that are well defined and whose nature varies with divergence." Jicheng Wang et al., "Evidence for mutation showers" [abstract], 10.1073/pnas.0610902104, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 7 May 2007. Suzanne Estes and Stevan J. Arnold, "Resolving the Paradox of Stasis: Models with Stabilizing Selection Explain Evolutionary Divergence on All Timescales" [abstract | 18-page PDF], doi:10.1086/510633, p 227-244 v 169, The American Naturalist, Feb (online 4 Jan) 2007. Also see commentary: Andrew Hendry, "The Elvis paradox" [PDF], doi:10.1038/446147a, p 147-149 v 446, Nature, 8 Mar 2007. Jun Gojobori et al., "Adaptive evolution in humans revealed by the negative correlation between the polymorphism and fixation phases of evolution" [abstract], 10.1073/pnas.0605565104, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 26 Feb 2007. No Missing Link? Evolutionary Changes Occur Suddenly, Professor Says, ScienceDaily.com, 12 Feb 2007. Scientists Discover Parallel Codes In Genes, ScienceDaily.com, 9 Feb 2007. Genetic information: Codes and enigmas, doi:10.1038/444259a, by Helen Pearson, News@Nature.com, online 15 Nov 2006. Christopher D Herring, Anu Raghunathan, Christiane Honisch et al., "Comparative genome sequencing of Escherichia coli allows observation of bacterial evolution on a laboratory timescale" [abstract], 10.1038/ng1906, Nature Genetics, online 5 Nov 2006. "We obtained proof that the observed spontaneous mutations were responsible for improved fitness by creating single, double and triple site-directed mutants...." Orkun S. Soyer and Sebastian Bonhoeffer, "Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways" [abstract], 10.1073/pnas.0604449103, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 23 Oct 2006. "...Pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms...." 3 Oct 2006: Can plants overwrite unhealthy genes? P M Brakefield and V French, "Evo-devo focus issue: Editorial" [text], 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800878, p 137-138 v 97, Heredity, Sep 2006. "...The basic mechanisms of embryonic development are extremely ancient and have been highly conserved.... Evo-devo... should continue to reveal how genetic change in the processes of development can lead to the abundant diversity in form that we observe in nature." 7 Jun 2006: Blowflies were preadapted for the rapid evolution of insecticide resistance. Daniel M. Weinreich et al., "Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins" [abstract], p 111-114 v 312, Science, 7 Apr 2006. About optimization: 5 certain a-a substitutions could theoretically be reached 5!=120 ways, but only 10 of them are likely to be permitted by natural selection. T. Martin Embley1 and William Martin, "Eukaryotic evolution, changes and challenges" [abstract], p 623-630 v 440, Nature, 30 Mar 2006. 19 Feb 2006: Why has there has been so little change in major body plans since the Early Cambrian? 14 Feb 2006: Researchers evolve a complex genetic trait in the laboratory? 5 Jan 2006: "Evolution in Action" was the number one "Breakthrough of the Year" according to Science. 31 Oct 2005: The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma, by Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, Yale University Press, 2005. 30 Sep 2005: The chimp genome has been sequenced. At least seventeen human genes contain exons missing in chimps. Could evo-devo account for genetic novelty? Stan Franklin wonders, 25 Jul 2005. 14 Jul 2005: The World Summit on Evolution in the Galapagos Islands, 8-12 June 2005. University of Chicago study overturns conventional theory in evolution, by Catherine Gianaro, EurekAlert!, 7 Jun 2005. Alarm pheromone causes aphids to sprout wings, by Lynne Miller, EurekAlert!, 18 May 2005. Tohru Sugawara et al., "Parallelism of amino acid changes at the RH1 affecting spectral sensitivity among deep-water cichlids from Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi" [abstract], p 5448-5453 v 102, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 12 Apr 2005. "...The number of genetic changes underlying the appearance of similar traits in cichlid diversification may be fewer than previously expected." 24 Mar 2005: Plants can overwrite unhealthy genes. 15 Mar 2005: "Biology today is no more fully understood in principle than physics was a century or so ago." Andrew P. Hendry, "The power of natural selection," p 694-695 v 433, Nature, 17 Feb 2005. "We are only deluding ourselves that we have a good handle on the typical power of selection in nature." 16 Feb 2005: Fitness Landscapes. I King Jordan et al., "A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution" [abstract], doi:10.1038/nature03306, p 633-638 v 433, Nature, 10 Feb 2005. 4 Feb 2005: Ernst Mayr died yesterday at 100 years of age. H. Allen Orr, "The Genetic Theory of Adaptation: A Brief History" [open access], doi:10.1038/nrg1523, p 119-127 v 6, Nature Reviews Genetics, Feb 2005. Our comment adaptation has a very short reach. Rachel B. Brem and Leonid Kruglyak, "The landscape of genetic complexity across 5,700 gene expression traits in yeast" [abstract], 10.1073/pnas.040870910
2, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, online 19 Jan 2005. "Most detected QTLs (quantitative trait loci) have weak effects." Kenneth M. Weiss and Anne V. Buchanan, Genetics and the Logic of Evolution, ISBN: 0471238058, Wiley-Liss (John Wiley and Sons, Inc.), 9 Jan 2004. 21 Nov 2004: Vertebrate photoreceptor cells in a primitive invertebrate. 14 Nov 2004: The birth of a new gene unique to apes and humans.... Sinad Collins and Graham Bell, "Phenotypic consequences of 1,000 generations of selection at elevated CO2 in a green alga," p 566 - 569 v 431 Nature, 30 Sep 2004. "...Selection lines of the unicellular green alga Chlamydomonas failed to evolve specific adaptation to a CO2 concentration of 1,050 parts per million." Emma Marris, "Tibetans show 'evolution in action'" [story], 10.1038/news040913-20, News@nature.com, 16 Sep 2004. "A gene for well oxygenated blood is spreading in the Himalayas." (Once a gene is available, natural selection works on it.) Flies with inner ears? by David Secko, The Scientist, 13 Sep 2004. "...The gene could direct the development of an organ it does not even possess." 25 Jul 2004: 100 years old, Ernst Mayr reviews the development evolutionary thought in Science. David J. Amor et al., "Human centromere repositioning 'in progress'" [abstract], p 6542-6547 v 101, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 27 Apr 2004. The Most Natural Selection, by Steven Kotler, LA Weekly, 18 Apr 2004. If evolution rewards only reproductive success, why does homosexuality persist? 16 Apr 2004: The rat genome has been sequenced. 14 Apr 2004: "Can we ever hope to pin down the genetic changes that underlie the big steps in evolution?" 24 Feb 2004: Evolution caught in the act? Erik R. Zinser et al., "Bacterial Evolution Through the Selective Loss of Beneficial Genes: Trade-Offs in Expression Involving Two Loci" [abstract], p 1271-1277 v 164, Genetics, August 2003. Adaptation by gene loss can happen a third way. 2003, August 29: "...We must conclude that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts..." (Franklin M. Harold, 2001). Redundant Evolution, by Leslie Mullen, Astrobiology Magazine, 28 Apr 2003. 2003, April 16: Point mutations are less important than rearrangements of longer DNA strands in evolution.... A new branch on the tree of life, by Lynn Yarris, ScienceBeat, 4 Apr 2003. "Nature, it seems, found two different ways to evolve six legs." 2003, March 25: Here Be Dragons, by David W. Koerner and Simon Levay. 2003, March 3: What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr. Testing Darwinism versus Cosmic Ancestry a new CA webpage, 24 Nov 2002. Steve Olson, "Seeking the Signs of Selection" [summary], p 1324-1325 v 298, Science, 15 Nov 2002. Fossil protein breakthrough will probe evolution, by Fred Pearce, NewScientist.com, 13 Nov 2002. "...Osteocalcin can survive ...long enough to look back ...to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees." Paul Raeburn, "'Of Moths and Men': The Moth That Failed" (book review) [text], The New York Times, 25 Aug 2001. Fossils Help Determine When Humans, Apes Diverged, nationalgeographic.com, 23 Aug 2002. "The gene,... was mutated (knocked out) in humans in comparison with the normal, intact gene in apes." 2002, July 14: Mouse vs Human 2002, Jul 7: Acquiring Genomes. Science Mimicking, Perhaps Even Predicting, Evolution about basic research that supports Darwinism, by Jonathan Sherwood, UniSci.com, 21 Mar 2002. 2002, Mar 2: Correction. 2002, Feb 8: Biologists demonstrate macroevolution and thus answer a major challenge to darwinism by creationists. 2001, December 21: A gene needed for multcellularity is present in a single-celled organism. Squirrels 'genetically altered' by forest. Actually they were altered by genes acquired from other squirrels. BBCNews, 21 Sep 2001. Donald R. Forsdyke, The Origin of Species, Revisited [contents, publisher's promo], McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001. 2001, May 28: Eukaryote-to-prokaryote evolution in 15 days?! 2000, December 26: An email to Massimo Pigliucci recaps the argument against Darwinism. 2000, December 15: Mutation appears to double lifespan of flies. 2000, November 23: Monad to Man, by Michael Ruse, about evolutionary progress. 2000, September 27: Prions can turn on genetic programs. 1999, July 15: A recent issue of Science features evolution. 1999, June 3: Example of microevolution. 1998, August 25: We owe the repertoire of our immune system to one transposon insertion, which occurred 450 million years ago in the ancestor of the jawed fishes. Was Darwin Wrong? The critics of evolution. Links to even-handed book reviews by Gert Korthof. The reviews have further links. The Tree of Life: an excellent growing illustrated resource on the classifications of life. Enter Evolution: Theory and History. Evolutionary scientists before Darwin, from UC Berkeley. Evolution, Science, and Society: a "white paper" on behalf of the field of evolutionary biology [Executive Summary] by Douglas J. Futuyma et al., revised Mar 1997.

1. Francisco J. Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky, eds. Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems. University of California Press 1974. p 364. 2. Lynn Margulis, [interviewed in] The Third Culture by John Brockman, Simon and Schuster, 1995. p 133. 3. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, BasicBooks, 1995. p 70. 3.5. Michael T. Madigan, John M. Martinko and Jack Parker, Brock Biology of Microorganisms, eighth edition, Prentice Hall, 1997. p 332. 4. Renato Dulbecco, The Design of Life, Yale University Press, 1987. p 122. 4.5. Walter M. Fitch, Robin M. Bush, Catherine A. Bender and Nancy J. Cox, "Long term trends in the evolution of H(3) HA1 human influenza type A," p 7712-7718 v 94, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, July 1997. 5. Manfred Eigen, "New Concepts for Dealing with the Evolution of Nucleic Acids," p 307-320, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Volume LII: Evolution of Catalytic Function, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1987. 6. Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng. "Evolution of antifreeze protein from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish" [abstract], p 3811-3816 v 94, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, April 1997. 7. John M. Logsdon, Jr., and W. Ford Doolittle. "Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution" [text], p 3485-3487 v 94, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, April 1997. 8. Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, "Convergent evolution of antifreeze glysoproteins in Anta
rctic notothenioid fish and Arctic Cod" [abstract], p 3817-3822 v 94, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, April 1997. 9. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. London: Verso Publishing, 1978. p 60. 10. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872; Down, England: Senate, 1994. p 146. The text of the first edition is available on the Internet: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. 11. Samuel A. Bowring, John P. Grotzinger, Clark E. Isachsen, Andrew H. Knoll, Shane M. Pelechaty and Peter Kolosov, "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," p 1293-1298 v 261, Science, 3 September 1993. 12. Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, W.W. Norton and Company, 1989. 13. Madeleine J. Nash, "When Life Exploded," p 66-74, Time, 4 December 1995. 14. J.B.S. Haldane, On Being the Right Size and other essays, John Maynard Smith, ed., Oxford University Press, 1987. Includes the essay, "The Origin of Life," 1928. p 12. 15. Richard Dawkins, "The eye in a twinkling" p 690-691 v 368, Nature, 21 April 1994. 16. Georg Halder, Patrick Callaerts and Walter J. Gehring, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the eyeless Gene in Drosophila" [abstract], p 1788-1792 v 267, Science, 24 March 1995. 17. Constance Holden, "On the Path of the Primordial Eye" [html], p 1885 v 275, Science, 28 March 1997. 18. John Travis, "Eye-opening Gene: How many times did eyes arise?" in ScienceNewsOnline. 10 May 1997. 19. T.A. Brown, Genetics: A Molecular Approach, 2nd edition, Chapman and Hall, 1992. p 171. 20. Justin Goodrich, Preeya Puangsomlee, Marta Martin, Deborah Long, Elliot M. Meyerowitz and George Coupland, "A Polycomb-group gene regulates homeotic gene expression in Arabidosis," p 44-51 v 386, Nature, 6 March 1997. 20.5. Robert Macchiarelli "The whole tooth" [interview], p 349 v 425, Nature, 25 Sep 2003. 21. Natalie Angie, "When Evolution Creates the Same Design Again and Again," The New York Times, December 15, 1998. 22. Natalie Angie, "When Evolution Creates the Same Design Again and Again," The New York Times, December 15, 1998. 23. Neil A. Campbell, Biology, 3rd Edition, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. p G17-G18. 24. Ernst Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, Harvard University Press, 1988. p 402. 25. KS Dulai, M von Dornum, JD Mollon and DM Hunt, "The evolution of trichromatic color vision by opsin gene duplication in New World and Old World primates," p 629-638 v 9 n 7, Genome Research, July 1999. 26. Shozo Yokoyama, Huan Zhang, F. Bernhard Radlwimmer and Nathan S. Blow, "Adaptive evolution of color vision of the Comoran coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae)" [abstract], p 6279-6284 v 96, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 25 May 1999. Also duscussed in "What'sNEW," 3 June 1999. 27. Karl R. Popper, "Two Faces of Common Sense..." p 32-105, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford University Press, 1972. p 69. 28. Robert Rosen, Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry Into the Nature, Origin and Fabrication of Life, Columbia University Press, 1991. p 255. 29. Steve Fuller, Science, ISBN: 0-8166-3125-5, University of Minnesota Press, 1997. p 18.

Read more from the original source:

Neo-Darwinism : The Current Paradigm. by Brig Klyce

Posted in Darwinism | Comments Off on Neo-Darwinism : The Current Paradigm. by Brig Klyce

RIA – Robotics Online – Industrial Robot Automation

Posted: at 2:36 pm

Robeye All In One (RAIO)

RAIO is a sensor for 3D Robotic Guidance designed for high industrial reliability. Driven by powerful visual recognition and guidance software, RAIO gives robots human sight delivering XYZRxRyRz.

Albany RapidProtect 2000

The machine protection door of choice for Automotive Line Builders for decades.

Worlds Most Cost-Effective Robots

Why do DENSO robots have such a low cost of ownership? DENSO's own manufacturing needs demand it.

More Reach, More PayloadMore EPSON

Offering an 8 kg Payload with up to a 1400 mm Reach, with Half the Footprint of Robots in its Class

KINGSTAR Soft Motion

Replace Your Motion Control Hardware with Quality, Precision Performance Software at Half the Cost.

Robotic Integration Capabilities

Intelligrated robotic systems offer speed, accuracy and reliability to meet strict requirements.

Multi-Axis Force/Torque Sensors

Gives robots a tactile sense of touch by sending feedback to control the robot's positioning.

High-Speed Palletizing Robots

Kawasakis CP Series robots are capable of industry leading palletizing rates of 2,050 cycles per hour!

Continued here:

RIA - Robotics Online - Industrial Robot Automation

Posted in Robotics | Comments Off on RIA – Robotics Online – Industrial Robot Automation

Robotics News & Articles – IEEE Spectrum

Posted: at 2:36 pm

Latest

17Jun

16Jun

15Jun

13Jun

10Jun

31May

31May

17May

5Apr

8Feb

10Nov2015

31May

31May

26Jan

23Dec2015

22Dec2015

26Nov2015

9Jun

7Jun

7Jun

7Jun

6Jun

3Jun

3Jun

2Jun

1Jun

1Jun

31May

31May

31May

31May

30May

27May

27May

25May

Read the original here:

Robotics News & Articles - IEEE Spectrum

Posted in Robotics | Comments Off on Robotics News & Articles – IEEE Spectrum

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Guide | University …

Posted: at 2:35 pm

A.D.A.M., Inc. is accredited by URAC, also known as the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (www.urac.org). URAC's accreditation program is an independent audit to verify that A.D.A.M. follows rigorous standards of quality and accountability. A.D.A.M. is among the first to achieve this important distinction for online health information and services. Learn more about A.D.A.M.'s editorial policy, editorial process and privacy policy. A.D.A.M. is also a founding member of Hi-Ethics and subscribes to the principles of the Health on the Net Foundation (www.hon.ch)

The information provided herein should not be used during any medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. A licensed medical professional should be consulted for diagnosis and treatment of any and all medical conditions. Call 911 for all medical emergencies. Links to other sites are provided for information only -- they do not constitute endorsements of those other sites. 1997-2013 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.

See the original post here:

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Guide | University ...

Posted in Alternative Medicine | Comments Off on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Guide | University …