Putative RNA-directed adaptive mutations in cancer evolution

The Physics-Biology continuum challenges darwinism: Evolution is directed by the homeostasis-dependent bidirectional relation between genome and phenotype

The physics-biology continuum relies on the fact that life emerged from prebiotic molecules. Here, I argue that life emerged from the coupling between nucleic acid and protein synthesis during which proteins (or proto-phenotypes) maintained the physicochemical parameter equilibria (or proto-homeostasis) in the proximity of their encoding nucleic acids (or proto-genomes). This protected the proto-genome physicochemical integrity (i.e., atomic composition) from environmental physicochemical constraints, and therefore increased the probability of reproducing the proto-genome without variation. From there, genomes evolved depending on the biological activities they generated in response to environmental fluctuations. Thus, a genome maintaining homeostasis (i.e., internal physicochemical parameter equilibria), despite and in response to environmental fluctuations, maintains its physicochemical integrity and has therefore a higher probability to be reproduced without variation. Consequently, descendants have a higher probability to share the same phenotype than their parents. Otherwise, the genome is modified during replication as a consequence of the imbalance of the internal physicochemical parameters it generates, until new mutation-deriving biological activities maintain homeostasis in offspring. In summary, evolution depends on feedforward and feedback loops between genome and phenotype, as the internal physicochemical conditions that a genome generates ─ through its derived phenotype in response to environmental fluctuations ─ in turn either guarantee its stability or direct its variation. Evolution may not be explained by the Darwinism-derived, unidirectional principle (random mutations-phenotypes-natural selection) but rather by the bidirectional relationship between genome and phenotype, in which the phenotype in interaction with the environment directs the evolution of the genome it derives from.

Physicochemical Foundations of Life that Direct Evolution: Chance and Natural Selection are not Evolutionary Driving Forces

The current framework of evolutionary theory postulates that evolution relies on random mutations generating a diversity of phenotypes on which natural selection acts. This framework was established using a top-down approach as it originated from Darwinism, which is based on observations made of complex multicellular organisms and, then, modified to fit a DNA-centric view. In this article, it is argued that based on a bottom-up approach starting from the physicochemical properties of nucleic and amino acid polymers, we should reject the facts that (i) natural selection plays a dominant role in evolution and (ii) the probability of mutations is independent of the generated phenotype. It is shown that the adaptation of a phenotype to an environment does not correspond to organism fitness, but rather corresponds to maintaining the genome stability and integrity. In a stable environment, the phenotype maintains the stability of its originating genome and both (genome and phenotype) are reproduced identically. In an unstable environment (i.e., corresponding to variations in physicochemical parameters above a physiological range), the phenotype no longer maintains the stability of its originating genome, but instead influences its variations. Indeed, environment- and cellular-dependent physicochemical parameters define the probability of mutations in terms of frequency, nature, and location in a genome. Evolution is non-deterministic because it relies on probabilistic physicochemical rules, and evolution is driven by a bidirectional interplay between genome and phenotype in which the phenotype ensures the stability of its originating genome in a cellular and environmental physicochemical parameter-depending manner.

Overcoming randomness does not rule out the importance of inherent randomness for functionality

Randomness is intrinsic to many natural processes. It is also clear that, under certain conditions, disorders are not associated with functionality. Several examples in which overcoming, suppressing, or combining both randomness and non-randomness is required are drawn from various fields. However, the need to suppress or overcome randomness does not negate its importance under certain conditions and its significance in valid processes and organ functions. Randomness should be acknowledged rather than ignored or suppressed; it can be viewed, at worst, as a disturbing disorder that may be treated to produce order, or, at best, as a 'beneficial disorder' that can be considered as a higher level of functionality.