Lifeboat Foundation

Half a century after its foundation, the neutral theory of molecular evolution continues to attract controversy. The debate has been hampered by the coexistence of different interpretations of the core proposition of the neutral theory, the ‘neutral mutation–random drift’ hypothesis. In this review, we trace the origins of these ambiguities and suggest potential solutions. We highlight the difference between the original, the revised and the nearly neutral hypothesis, and re-emphasise that none of them equates to the null hypothesis of strict neutrality. We distinguish the neutral hypothesis of protein evolution, the main focus of the ongoing debate, from the neutral hypotheses of genomic and functional DNA evolution, which for many species are generally accepted. We advocate a further distinction between a narrow and an extended neutral hypothesis (of which the latter posits that random non-conservative amino acid substitutions can cause non-ecological phenotypic divergence), and we discuss the implications for evolutionary biology beyond the domain of molecular evolution. We furthermore point out that the debate has widened from its initial focus on point mutations, and also concerns the fitness effects of large-scale mutations, which can alter the dosage of genes and regulatory sequences. We evaluate the validity of neutralist and selectionist arguments and find that the tested predictions, apart from being sensitive to violation of underlying assumptions, are often derived from the null hypothesis of strict neutrality, or equally consistent with the opposing selectionist hypothesis, except when assuming molecular panselectionism. Our review aims to facilitate a constructive neutralist–selectionist debate, and thereby to contribute to answering a key question of evolutionary biology: what proportions of amino acid and nucleotide substitutions and polymorphisms are adaptive?

Half a century after its foundation, the neutral theory of molecular evolution continues to attract controversy. The debate has been hampered by the coexistence of different interpretations of the core proposition of the neutral theory, the ‘neutral mutation–random drift’ hypothesis. In this review, we trace the origins of these ambiguities and suggest potential solutions. We highlight the difference between the original, the revised and the nearly neutral hypothesis, and re-emphasise that none of them equates to the null hypothesis of strict neutrality. We distinguish the neutral hypothesis of protein evolution, the main focus of the ongoing debate, from the neutral hypotheses of genomic and functional DNA evolution, which for many species are generally accepted. We advocate a further distinction between a narrow and an extended neutral hypothesis (of which the latter posits that random non-conservative amino acid substitutions can cause non-ecological phenotypic divergence), and we discuss the implications for evolutionary biology beyond the domain of molecular evolution. We furthermore point out that the debate has widened from its initial focus on point mutations, and also concerns the fitness effects of large-scale mutations, which can alter the dosage of genes and regulatory sequences. We evaluate the validity of neutralist and selectionist arguments and find that the tested predictions, apart from being sensitive to violation of underlying assumptions, are often derived from the null hypothesis of strict neutrality, or equally consistent with the opposing selectionist hypothesis, except when assuming molecular panselectionism. Our review aims to facilitate a constructive neutralist–selectionist debate, and thereby to contribute to answering a key question of evolutionary biology: what proportions of amino acid and nucleotide substitutions and polymorphisms are adaptive?

WASHINGTON, Oct 16 (Reuters) — When British naturalist Charles Darwin sketched out his theory of evolution in the 1,859 book “On the Origin of Species” — proposing that biological species change over time through the acquisition of traits that favor survival and reproduction — it provoked a revolution in scientific thought.

Now 164 years later, nine scientists and philosophers on Monday proposed a new law of nature that includes the biological evolution described by Darwin as a vibrant example of a much broader phenomenon, one that appears at the level of atoms, minerals, planetary atmospheres, planets, stars and more.

It holds that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity and complexity.

In the intricate landscape of global cybersecurity, Webwyrm malware has surfaced as a formidable adversary, casting its ominous shadow across 50 nations and leaving in its wake over 100,000 compromised victims. This insidious digital menace successfully emulates in excess of 1,000 reputable companies globally, with the ensuing potential financial fallout estimated to surpass a staggering $100 million. It is imperative for cybersecurity professionals and organizations alike to comprehend the multifaceted nature of this threat to devise and implement robust defensive strategies effectively.

In the dynamic realm of cyber threats, malicious actors incessantly refine their Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs), exploiting extant vulnerabilities and augmenting the efficacy of their malicious campaigns. Webwyrm epitomizes this relentless pursuit of evolution, embodying a level of sophistication reminiscent of infamous cyber threats of yore, such as the notorious ‘Blue Whale Challenge.’

WebWyrm malware orchestrates a complex, deceptive narrative aimed at duping unsuspecting job seekers into relinquishing their cryptocurrency. Initiating contact predominantly via WhatsApp, the malefactors likely leverage data procured from employment portals to pinpoint and engage individuals predisposed to their deceptive overtures. Prospective victims are enticed with promises of lucrative weekly remuneration, ranging between $1200 and $1500, contingent upon the completion of daily task “packets” or “resets.”

The strange science experiment that blew a worm’s head off… and blew our minds.

This interview is an episode from @The-Well, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the @JohnTempletonFoundation.

Continue reading “The beauty of collective intelligence, explained by a developmental biologist” »

Lectiure by Gregory Bateson.

Scientists have for the first time revealed how blue-green algae—visible as the slippery green slime in stagnant water, riverbeds, and seashores—weaves itself into large weblike structures.

A team at Nottingham Trent University and Loughborough University has revealed the physical mechanism behind the geometric patterns formed of cyanobacteria, one of the oldest and most abundant forms of life on Earth, and which has played a pivotal role in the evolution of our planet.

The research, for which Ph.D. students Mixon Faluweki and Jan Cammann are co-lead authors, is published in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Do you think human beings are the last stage in evolution? If not, what comes next?

I do not think human beings are the last stage in the evolutionary process. Whatever comes next will be neither simply organic nor simply machinic but will be the result of the increasingly symbiotic relationship between human beings and technology.

Bound together as parasite/host, neither people nor technologies can exist apart from the other because they are constitutive prostheses of each other. Such an interrelation is not unique to human beings. As the physiologist J. Scott Turner writes in “The Extended Organism”: “Animal-built structures are properly considered organs of physiology, in principle no different from, and just as much a part of the organism as kidneys, heart, lungs or livers.” This is true for termites, for example, who form a single organism in symbiosis with their nests. The extended body of the organism is created by the extended mind of the colony.

Thanks to directed evolution accelerating natural selection processes, scientists are generating mutants with beneficial properties and improving functionality.

Learn more about these reagents in the new Research Products.

Directed evolution approaches are creating new reagents to help a tried-and-true technique reach new heights.

Continue reading “Directing Superior Reagents for Better PCR Results” »