This is a comment to a post in the Skeptic Wonder Blog that in turn refers to a Nature article. The article tackles the evolution of protein interaction and the post tries to define a broader scope to it, even including bureaucracy which is fine with me.
All resides with evolutionary progress, so fiercely denied by evolutionary watchdogs in their capacity of editors of prestigious evolutionary journals and scientific meetings. True evolutionary scientists since Darwin and before appreciate progress as an essential part of evolution, and they claim that progress occurs naturally without interference of a divine hand.
Next the term neutral as the term fitness are fauceir dependent. These terms depend on your vantage point. As almost all evolutionary biologists are DNA heredity fixed, many evolutionary changes, even progress is neutral to that system of heredity. For instance, while we discuss evolution this means progress to evolutionary theory (hopefully) but has absolutely no effect on my and your reproductive success :-))
Fauceirology abstracts the world into a system of nested fauceirs, evolutionary units, that have their own agendas. Hence progress in one of these nested fauceirs can be neutral or even disadvantageous to an other. That depends on the fauceir hierarchy. Let’s give an example from the Bible. (Those rather militant atheist may wonder why the Bible can be quoted to substantiate evolution, but evolution embraces everything even religion.)
I used the same example in an earlier post already. It is the story about Joseph and his brothers, so elaborately illustrated by Thomas Mann in his novel. This story may serve as an allegory for what happened to these complex protein molecules described in the Nature paper. The two brothers of Joseph’s were not as bright as him. In fact, they were rather jerks. (Remember the resemblance to misfolded proteins.) Still these two brother were successful in outdoing Joseph as they combined their forces. As they throw him for starvation into a dried out well, they won the competition for their father’s heritage. It would have had a bearing on reproductive fitness if they had wiped him out. They didn’t. Not in that example. Though their interaction was a success in respect their own well-being it was neutral.
Same ‘neutral’ evolutionary examples can be found throughout the realm of biology even among different species. These interactions can be temporary forming mating couples or packs or persistent forming symbioses.
Emoticon is an language example. The world is full of them.
What is the general rule the take home message concerning neutrality of evolution.
Neutrality and Progress is a question of fauceir perspective.
I’m amazed how much evidence in support of fauceir theory has accumulated over the last couple of years. This Nature acticle is only one and many wait to be covered here.
Concluding this post, I’d like to relate the message from Nature 2004 when Mato tried to publish his Fauceir Theory
Thank you for offering us your paper entitled “An evolved concept of evolution: A generalized theory of evolution extending from physics to societies provides more insight into specifics.”, which we must decline on editorial grounds. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that the proposed article will be of sufficiently immediate interest to our readership to justify publication in any section of the journal.
I am sorry that on this occasion we cannot be more encouraging.
… the developments are encouraging though.
This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.