The quantum cell

There is a consensus that we are conscious of something greater than ourselves, as if we are derived from some other primordial set of principles. Classical or Newtonian physics is based on the Laws of Nature. Conversely, in a recent series of articles, it has been hypothesized that the cell was formed from lipid molecules submerged in the primordial ocean that covered the earth 100 million years after it formed. Since lipids are amphiphiles, with both a positively- and negatively-charged pole, the negatively-charged pole is miscible in water. Under the influence of earth's gravity, the lipid molecules stand up perpendicularly to the surface of the water, packing together until the negative charge neutralizes the Van der Waals force for surface tension, causing the lipid molecules to 'leap' into the micellar form as a sphere with a semi-permeable membrane. Particles in the water freely enter and exit such spheres based on mass action. Over time such protocells evolved Symbiogenesis, encountering factors that posed existential threats, assimilating them to form physiology to maintain homeostatic control. Importantly, when differentiated lung or bone cells are exposed to zero gravity, they lose their phenotypic identity in their evolved state, which has been interpreted as transiting from local to non-local consciousness.

Characterisation of the fig-fig wasp holobiont

Plants and animals have long been considered distinct kingdoms, yet here a 'plant-animal' is described. An extraordinary symbiosis in which neither organism can reproduce without the other, the fig tree (Ficus) provides the habitat for its exclusive pollinator: the fig wasp (Agaonidae). Characterising the 'fig-fig wasp holobiont' acknowledges, for the first time, 'plant-animal symbiogenesis'.

The symbiotic origin of the eukaryotic cell

Eukaryogenesis represented a major evolutionary transition that led to the emergence of complex cells from simpler ancestors. For several decades, the most accepted scenario involved the evolution of an independent lineage of proto-eukaryotes endowed with an endomembrane system, including a nuclear compartment, a developed cytoskeleton and phagocytosis, which engulfed the alphaproteobacterial ancestor of mitochondria. However, the recent discovery by metagenomic and cultural approaches of Asgard archaea, which harbour many genes in common with eukaryotes and are their closest relatives in phylogenomic trees, rather supports scenarios based on the symbiosis of one Asgard-like archaeon and one or more bacteria at the origin of the eukaryotic cell. Here, we review the recent discoveries that led to this conceptual shift, briefly evoking current models of eukaryogenesis and the challenges ahead to discriminate between them and to establish a detailed, plausible scenario that accounts for the evolution of eukaryotic traits from those of their prokaryotic ancestors.

Symbiosis and the Anthropocene

Recent human activity has profoundly transformed Earth biomes on a scale and at rates that are unprecedented. Given the central role of symbioses in ecosystem processes, functions, and services throughout the Earth biosphere, the impacts of human-driven change on symbioses are critical to understand. Symbioses are not merely collections of organisms, but co-evolved partners that arise from the synergistic combination and action of different genetic programs. They function with varying degrees of permanence and selection as emergent units with substantial potential for combinatorial and evolutionary innovation in both structure and function. Following an articulation of operational definitions of symbiosis and related concepts and characteristics of the Anthropocene, we outline a basic typology of anthropogenic change (AC) and a conceptual framework for how AC might mechanistically impact symbioses with select case examples to highlight our perspective. We discuss surprising connections between symbiosis and the Anthropocene, suggesting ways in which new symbioses could arise due to AC, how symbioses could be agents of ecosystem change, and how symbioses, broadly defined, of humans and “farmed” organisms may have launched the Anthropocene. We conclude with reflections on the robustness of symbioses to AC and our perspective on the importance of symbioses as ecosystem keystones and the need to tackle anthropogenic challenges as wise and humble stewards embedded within the system.

Why the third way of evolution is necessary

The Third Way of Evolution was founded in 2014 to make the public aware that contemporary evolution science is not limited to the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis of the past century. This was important to do because evolution was challenged as incapable of explaining biological complexity by the Intelligent Design movement. Expounding biological theories like the Modern Synthesis is always subject to limited empirical evidence, fundamental concepts that inevitably change over time, and conceptual preferences that often prove to be misleading. The Modern Synthesis was based on Darwin's preference for the phyletic gradualism necessary to elevate Natural Selection as the sole force determining the direction of evolutionary change. In contradiction to this principle, agricultural crop breeding, direct observation in nature, and genomics have shown that genome change following symbiogenetic cell fusions or interspecific hybridization, not selection, are empirically the most effective methods for originating novel life forms and new species. By asserting that the accumulation of random "slight" variations was the basic mode of both short-term and long-term evolutionary change, the Modern Synthesis also ignored the distinction between (1) microevolutionary change within species by localized mutations and (2) macroevolutionary origination of new species and taxa by genome restructuring. In so doing, the Modern Synthesis failed to recognize the evolutionary importance of cellular capacities to generate large-scale genome changes. By focusing on individual protein-coding genes as the fundamental units of genetic information, the Modern Synthesis did not successfully incorporate either the full non-coding informa tion content in genomes or the major evolutionary potential of mobile DNA elements to generate multisite intragenomic networks necessary for the development of complex organisms. When all of the phenomena overlooked by the Modern Synthesis are taken into consideration, it is not difficult to answer Intelligent Design arguments and show that science is making real progress in understanding the evolution of biological complexity.

The drawbridge of nature: Evolutionary complexification as a generation and novel interpretation of coding systems

The phenomenon of evolutionary complexification corresponds to the generation of new coding systems (defined as а codepoiesis by Marcello Barbieri). The whole process of generating novel coding statements that substantiate organizational complexification leads to an expansion of the system that incorporates externality to support newly generated complex structures. During complexifying evolution, the values are assigned to the previously unproven statements via their encoding by using new codes or rearranging the old ones. In this perspective, living systems during evolution continuously realize the proof of Gödel's theorem. In the real physical world, this realization is grounded in the irreversible reduction of the fundamental uncertainty appearing in the self-referential process of internal measurement performed by living systems. It leads to the formation of reflexive loops that establish novel interrelations between the biosystem and the external world and provide a possibility of active anticipatory transformation of externality. We propose a metamathematical framework that can account for the underlying logic of codepoiesis, outline the basic principles of the generation of new coding systems, and describe main codepoietic events in the course of progressive biological evolution. The evolutionary complexification is viewed as a metasystem transition that results in the increase of external work by the system based on the division of labor between its components.

Symbiogenesis is driven through hierarchical reorganization of an ecosystem under closed or semi-closed conditions

Ecosystems generate selective environments and function as sources of various metabolic systems for symbiogenesis. In this study, we have explored how symbiogenesis occurs in the living world, from a holistic perspective, by observing a long-term experimental culture of an ecosystem model (CET microcosm) and using related findings in laboratory and field studies of endosymbiosis between auto- (photo-) and heterotrophic organisms. The results obtained suggest that symbiogenesis can occur in the mature stages of semi-closed ecosystems and lead to a new ecosystem-oriented perspective of symbiogenesis. Symbiogenesis is an aspect of ecosystem evolution in which whole ecosystem dynamics generate selective conditions operating on the component species, favoring symbiotic associations among some of them. The development of symbiotic associations then modifies the organization and material/energy flow structure of the ecosystem, which, in turn, modifies their selective environments.

The role of symbiosis in the first colonization of the seafloor by macrobiota: Insights from the oldest Ediacaran biota (Newfoundland, Canada)

The earliest record of animal life comes from the Ediacaran of Newfoundland, including dm scale fossil organisms, most of which are inferred to have been epibenthic immotile eumetazoans. This work introduces the palaeobiology of the major fossil groups in the Newfoundland assemblages including strange fractal-like taxa and addresses some of biogeochemical challenges such as sulfide buildup that could most easily have been overcome by symbiogenesis. Specifically, the epibenthic reclining nature of some of the Ediacaran biota-with their fractal-like high surface area lower surfaces-are considered to have been well designed for gaining nutriment from chemosynthetic, sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. This view constitutes a shift away from the view that most of the biota were anomalously large osmotrophs.

The origin of symbiogenesis: An annotated English translation of Mereschkowsky's 1910 paper on the theory of two plasma lineages

In 1910, the Russian biologist Konstantin Sergejewitch Mereschkowsky (Константин Сергеевич Мережковский, in standard transliterations also written as Konstantin Sergeevič Merežkovskij and Konstantin Sergeevich Merezhkovsky) published a notable synthesis of observations and inferences concerning the origin of life and the origin of nucleated cells. His theory was based on physiology and leaned heavily upon the premise that thermophilic autotrophs were ancient. The ancestors of plants and animals were inferred as ancestrally mesophilic anucleate heterotrophs (Monera) that became complex and diverse through endosymbiosis. He placed a phylogenetic root in the tree of life among anaerobic autotrophic bacteria that lack chlorophyll. His higher level classification of all microbes and macrobes in the living world was based upon the presence or absence of past endosymbiotic events. The paper's primary aim was to demonstrate that all life forms descend from two fundamentally distinct organismal lineages, called mykoplasma and amoeboplasma, whose very nature was so different that, in his view, they could only have arisen independently of one another and at different times during Earth history. The mykoplasma arose at a time when the young Earth was still hot, it later gave rise to cyanobacteria, which in turn gave rise to plastids. The product of the second origin of life, the amoeboplasma, arose after the Earth had cooled and autotrophs had generated substrates for heterotrophic growth. Lineage diversification of that second plasma brought forth, via serial endosymbioses, animals (one symbiosis) and then plants (two symbioses, the second being the plastid). The paper was published in German, rendering it inaccessible to many interested scholars. Here we translate the 1910 paper in full and briefly provide some context.

Lynn Margulis and Boris Kozo-Polyansky: How the Symbiogenesis was translated from Russian

This contribution details the complex history of the early work by Boris Kozo-Polyansky (1924) that became available in English translation 86 years after it was published in Russian. The great American naturalist Lynn Margulis-whose serial endosymbiosis theory was presciently predated by Kozo-Polyansky by four decades-was instrumental in organizing this resurrection and 'horizontal transfer' of knowledge, forgotten by that time even in Russia.

Symbiogenesis as a driving force of evolution: The legacy of Boris Kozo-Polyansky

We analyze evolutionary views of Boris Kozo-Polyansky (1890-1957) who was the first who formulated the symbiotic theory of evolution as a concept in his book, Symbiogenesis: A New Principle of Evolution (1924). Later, starting from 1967, Lynn Margulis independently formulated and further developed the concept of symbiogenesis. Although the ideas on the symbiotic origin of chloroplasts and mitochondria appeared earlier, the book of Kozo-Polyansky presented symbiogenesis as the main factor of complexification in the course of evolution, not only in relation to the origin of eukaryotic cell. Kozo-Polyansky incorporated the ideas of symbiogenesis into a broader paradigm that anticipated the important concepts of the modern Extended Evolutionary Synthesis such as the idea of net of life, the evolutionary role of apoptosis, the ideas of punctuated equilibrium, and the concept of metasystem transition.

A cosmic virosphere

The concept of a cosmic virosphere that serves as the repository of information for all life on Earth and throughout the Universe is discussed. Recent studies in geology, astronomy and biology point to an intimate connection between the evolution of life and a cosmic virosphere/biosphere.

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis

Many theorists in recent years have been calling for evolutionary biology to move beyond the Modern Synthesis - the paradigm that has long provided the theoretical backbone for the discipline. Terms like "postmodern synthesis," "integrative synthesis," and "extended evolutionary synthesis" have been invoked by various critics in connection with the many recent developments that pose deep challenges - even contradictions - to the traditional model and underscore the need for an update, or a makeover. However, none of these critics, to this author's knowledge, has to date offered an explicit alternative that could provide a unifying theoretical paradigm for our vastly increased knowledge about living systems and the history of life on Earth (but see Noble 2015, 2017). This paper briefly summarizes the case against the Modern Synthesis and its many amendments over the years, and a new paradigm is proposed, called an "Inclusive Biological Synthesis," which, it is argued, can provide a more general framework for the biological sciences. The focus of this framework is the fundamental nature of life as a contingent dynamic process - an always at-risk "survival enterprise." The ongoing, inescapable challenge of earning a living in a given environmental context - biological survival and reproduction - presents an existential problem to which all biological phenomena can be related and comprehended. They and their "parts" can be analyzed in relation to ethologist Niko Tinbergen's four key questions. Some basic properties and guiding assumptions related to this alternative paradigm are also identified.

The Influence of Darwin's Pangenesis on Later Theories

Although Darwin's Pangenesis received strong criticism and never gained any very wide acceptance, it was of great importance due to its stimulating effect on later work and thought. Nearly every major theory of heredity developed in the late 19th century began with a discussion of Darwin's Pangenesis. Darwin was shown to play a more important role in the history of genetics than hitherto attributed to him by historians through a detailed analysis of the influence of his Pangenesis on de Vries' "Intracellular Pangenesis" and "The Mutation Theory," Weismann's theory of "Continuity of the Germ-plasm," Galton's "A Theory of Heredity" and "Natural Inheritance," Brooks' "The Law of Heredity, Ross's "Graft Theory of Diseases", Haeckel's perigenesis and Kozo-Polyansky's hypothetical version of symbiogenesis. Without Darwin's Pangenesis they would not have the foundation on which they formulated. By comparing these theories, it may be concluded that Darwin's Pangenesis combines all advantages of its sister-theories, and is more valuable, comprehensive and convincing than any other genetical theories yet advanced.