Darwin's Theory of Descent with Modification, versus the Biblical Tree of Life

The contours of evolution: In defence of Darwin's tree of life paradigm

Both the concept of a Darwinian tree of life (TOL) and the possibility of its accurate reconstruction have been much criticized. Criticisms mostly revolve around the extensive occurrence of lateral gene transfer (LGT), instances of uptake of complete organisms to become organelles (with the associated subsequent gene transfer to the nucleus), as well as the implications of more subtle aspects of the biological species concept. Here we argue that none of these criticisms are sufficient to abandon the valuable TOL concept and the biological realities it captures. Especially important is the need to conceptually distinguish between organismal trees and gene trees, which necessitates incorporating insights of widely occurring LGT into modern evolutionary theory. We demonstrate that all criticisms, while based on important new findings, do not invalidate the TOL. After considering the implications of these new insights, we find that the contours of evolution are best represented by a TOL.

Rhizomal Reclassification of Living Organisms

Living organisms interact with each other during their lifetime, leading to genomes rearrangement and sequences transfer. These well-known phenomena give these organisms mosaic genomes, which challenge their classification. Moreover, many findings occurred between the IXXth and XXIst century, especially the discovery of giant viruses and candidate phyla radiation (CPR). Here, we tried to provide an updated classification, which integrates 216 representative genomes of the current described organisms. The reclassification was expressed through a genetic network based on the total genomic content, not on a single gene to represent the tree of life. This rhizomal exploration represents, more accurately, the evolutionary relationships among the studied species. Our analyses show a separated branch named fifth TRUC (Things Resisting Uncompleted Classifications). This taxon groups CPRs together, independently from Bacteria, Archaea (which regrouped also Nanoarchaeota and Asgard members), Eukarya, and the giant viruses (recognized recently as fourth TRUC). Finally, the broadening of analysis methods will lead to the discovery of new organisms, which justify the importance of updating the classification at every opportunity. In this perspective, our pragmatic representation could be adjusted along with the progress of evolutionary studies.

Different from Trees, more than Metaphors: Branching Silhouettes-Corals, Cacti, and the Oaks

There has long been ambiguity in the use of the term tree in phylogenetic systematics, which is a continuous source of misinterpretation of evolutionary relationships. The basic problem is that while many trees with phylogenetic or evolutionary relevance, such as cladograms, are consistent with graph theory, tree-like visualization of phylogeny may also be done via other types of graphics, especially botanical (or literal) tree drawings. As a consequence, the meaning of such diagrams is not always clear: a given picture may have multiple interpretations in its different parts and two figures that look similar may actually carry quite different information. I show that these are not merely metaphors of phylogeny and may be defined mathematically as geometric shapes called branching silhouette diagrams, the name referring to their most apparent features. They have four basic forms depending on whether the time factor is considered in their construction and the relationships portrayed are of the ancestor-descendant or sister group type. By revitalizing Darwin's early suggestions on the illustration of change in the living world, I propose the term coral for the most common forms of branching silhouette which consider time and show ancestry. The others appear rarely in present-day practice and are mostly of historical value-these are cacti (named after one of Bessey's diagrams) and two types of oaks (with reference to several of Haeckel's motifs used in depicting phylogeny in the nineteenth century). The use of these terms in phylogenetic systematics facilitates better understanding of how organization of biodiversity has been visualized in science [Bessey; cladograms; coral-thinking; Darwin; graph theory; Haeckel; phylogeny; tree thinking.].

Impact of genomics on the understanding of microbial evolution and classification: the importance of Darwin's views on classification

Analyses of genome sequences, by some approaches, suggest that the widespread occurrence of horizontal gene transfers (HGTs) in prokaryotes disguises their evolutionary relationships and have led to questioning of the Darwinian model of evolution for prokaryotes. These inferences are critically examined in the light of comparative genome analysis, characteristic synapomorphies, phylogenetic trees and Darwin's views on examining evolutionary relationships. Genome sequences are enabling discovery of numerous molecular markers (synapomorphies) such as conserved signature indels (CSIs) and conserved signature proteins (CSPs), which are distinctive characteristics of different prokaryotic taxa. Based on these molecular markers, exhibiting high degree of specificity and predictive ability, numerous prokaryotic taxa of different ranks, currently identified based on the 16S rRNA gene trees, can now be reliably demarcated in molecular terms. Within all studied groups, multiple CSIs and CSPs have been identified for successive nested clades providing reliable information regarding their hierarchical relationships and these inferences are not affected by HGTs. These results strongly support Darwin's views on evolution and classification and supplement the current phylogenetic framework based on 16S rRNA in important respects. The identified molecular markers provide important means for developing novel diagnostics, therapeutics and for functional studies providing important insights regarding prokaryotic taxa.

Cooperation and selfishness both occur during molecular evolution

Perhaps the 'selfish' aspect of evolution has been over-emphasised, and organisms considered as basically selfish. However, at the macromolecular level of genes and proteins the cooperative aspect of evolution is more obvious and balances this self-centred aspect. Thousands of proteins must function together in an integrated manner to use and to produce the many molecules necessary for a functioning cell. The macromolecules have no idea whether they are functioning cooperatively or competitively with other genes and gene products (such as proteins). The cell is a giant cooperative system of thousands of genes/proteins that function together, even if it has to simultaneously resist 'parasites'. There are extensive examples of cooperative behavior among genes and proteins in both functioning cells and in the origin of life, so this cooperative nature, along with selfishness, must be considered part of normal evolution. The principles also apply to very large numbers of examples of 'positive interactions' between organisms, including both eukaryotes and akaryotes (prokaryotes). This does not negate in any way the 'selfishness' of genes - but macromolecules have no idea when they are helping, or hindering, other groups of macromolecules. We need to assert more strongly that genes, and gene products, function together as a cooperative unit.

Two fundamental questions about protein evolution

Two basic questions are considered that approach protein evolution from different directions; the problems arising from using Markov models for the deeper divergences, and then the origin of proteins themselves. The real problem for the first question (going backwards in time) is that at deeper phylogenies the Markov models of sequence evolution must lose information exponentially at deeper divergences, and several testable methods are suggested that should help resolve these deeper divergences. For the second question (coming forwards in time) a problem is that most models for the origin of protein synthesis do not give a role for the very earliest stages of the process. From our knowledge of the importance of replication accuracy in limiting the length of a coding molecule, a testable hypothesis is proposed. The length of the code, the code itself, and tRNAs would all have prior roles in increasing the accuracy of RNA replication; thus proteins would have been formed only after the tRNAs and the length of the triplet code are already formed. Both questions lead to testable predictions.

Beyond reasonable doubt: evolution from DNA sequences

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10⁻¹⁹ and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10⁻¹³². By comparison, there are about 10⁸⁰ protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 10⁵⁰ lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.

Rhizome of life, catastrophes, sequence exchanges, gene creations, and giant viruses: how microbial genomics challenges Darwin

Darwin's theory about the evolution of species has been the object of considerable dispute. In this review, we have described seven key principles in Darwin's book The Origin of Species and tried to present how genomics challenge each of these concepts and improve our knowledge about evolution. Darwin believed that species evolution consists on a positive directional selection ensuring the “survival of the fittest.” The most developed state of the species is characterized by increasing complexity. Darwin proposed the theory of “descent with modification” according to which all species evolve from a single common ancestor through a gradual process of small modification of their vertical inheritance. Finally, the process of evolution can be depicted in the form of a tree. However, microbial genomics showed that evolution is better described as the “biological changes over time.” The mode of change is not unidirectional and does not necessarily favors advantageous mutations to increase fitness it is rather subject to random selection as a result of catastrophic stochastic processes. Complexity is not necessarily the completion of development: several complex organisms have gone extinct and many microbes including bacteria with intracellular lifestyle have streamlined highly effective genomes. Genomes evolve through large events of gene deletions, duplications, insertions, and genomes rearrangements rather than a gradual adaptative process. Genomes are dynamic and chimeric entities with gene repertoires that result from vertical and horizontal acquisitions as well as de novo gene creation. The chimeric character of microbial genomes excludes the possibility of finding a single common ancestor for all the genes recorded currently. Genomes are collections of genes with different evolutionary histories that cannot be represented by a single tree of life (TOL). A forest, a network or a rhizome of life may be more accurate to represent evolutionary relationships among species.

Darwin's goldmine is still open: variation and selection run the world

The scientific contribution of Darwin, still agonized in many religious circles, has now been recognized and celebrated by scientists from various disciplines. However, in recent years, several evolutionists have criticized Darwin as outdated, arguing that "Darwinism," assimilated to the "tree of life," cannot explain microbial evolution, or else was not operating in early life evolution. These critics either confuse "Darwinism" and old versions of "neo-Darwinism" or misunderstand the role of gene transfers in evolution. The core of Darwin explanation of evolution (variation/selection) remains necessary and sufficient to decipher the history of life. The enormous diversity of mechanisms underlying variations has been successfully interpreted by evolutionists in this framework and has considerably enriched the corpus of evolutionary biology without the necessity to kill the father. However, it remains for evolutionists to acknowledge interactions between cells and viruses (unknown for Darwin) as a major driving force in life evolution.

How microbiology helps define the rhizome of life

In contrast to the tree of life (TOF) theory, species are mosaics of gene sequences with different origins. Observations of the extensive lateral sequence transfers in all organisms have demonstrated that the genomes of all life forms are collections of genes with different evolutionary histories that cannot be represented by a single TOF. Moreover, genes themselves commonly have several origins due to recombination. The human genome is not free from recombination events, so it is a mosaic like other organisms' genomes. Recent studies have demonstrated evidence for the integration of parasitic DNA into the human genome. Lateral transfer events have been accepted as major contributors of genome evolution in free-living bacteria. Furthermore, the accumulation of genomic sequence data provides evidence for extended genetic exchanges in intracellular bacteria and suggests that such events constitute an agent that promotes and maintains all bacterial species. Archaea and viruses also form chimeras containing primarily bacterial but also eukaryotic sequences. In addition to lateral transfers, orphan genes are indicative of the fact that gene creation is a permanent and unsettled phenomenon. Currently, a rhizome may more adequately represent the multiplicity and de novo creation of a genome. We wanted to confirm that the term “rhizome” in evolutionary biology applies to the entire cellular life history. This view of evolution should resemble a clump of roots representing the multiple origins of the repertoires of the genes of each species.

The influence of rickettsiologists on post-modern microbiology

Many of the definitions in microbiology are currently false. We have reviewed the great denominations of microbiology and attempted to free microorganisms from the theories of the twentieth century. The presence of compartmentation and a nucleoid in Planctomycetes clearly calls into question the accuracy of the definitions of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Archaea are viewed as prokaryotes resembling bacteria. However, the name archaea, suggesting an archaic origin of lifestyle, is inconsistent with the lifestyle of this family. Viruses are defined as small, filterable infectious agents, but giant viruses challenge the size criteria used for the definition of a virus. Pathogenicity does not require the acquisition of virulence factors (except for toxins), and in many cases, gene loss is significantly inked to the emergence of virulence. Species classification based on 16S rRNA is useless for taxonomic purposes of human pathogens, as a 2% divergence would classify all Rickettsiae within the same species and would not identify bacteria specialized for mammal infection. The use of metagenomics helps us to understand evolution and physiology by elucidating the structure, function, and interactions of the major microbial communities, but it neglects the minority populations. Finally, Darwin’s descent with modification theory, as represented by the tree of life, no longer matches our current genomic knowledge because genomics has revealed the occurrence of de novo-created genes and the mosaic structure of genomes, the Rhizome of life is therefore more appropriate.