Endosymbiosis --- A challenge to Dawkins' Universal Darwinism

by hamilcarr 46 Replies latest jw friends

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr

    Inspired by Dawkins' notion of Universal Darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection. Because of Dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.

    One of these challenges to Dawkins' Universal Darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by Lynn Margulis in the 90s. She's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations. For instance, she once predicted history will judge neo-darwinists as representatives of "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology", who "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him". Instead, she advocates an evolutionary theory of life with a more human face. "Life didn't take over the globe by combat, but by networking".

    What is endosymbiosis about? Endosymbiotic theory explains the origin of the five animal kingdoms. All living organisms can be classified under two forms: prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Prokaryotes are organisms composed of cells without a nucleus. Eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi and protists) are made up of cells with a nucleus and they also contain organelles, specialzed subunites with specific funtions (best known are the mitochondria, sometimes referred to as "power plants" of the cell).

    According to the endosymbiotic theory, these organelles originated as separate prokaryotic organisms who came to live inside one another, resulting a new extremely successful form of life, eukaryotes. Hence, endosymbiosis, literally rendered 'inner living together'.

    Endosymbiosis is a non-darwinian mechanism that succeeds in explaining the origin of eukaryotic life and lays the foundation of a truly comprehensible theory of evolutionary morality. Human history has shown that a literal struggle for life is less beneficial for our species' future than cooperation and symbiosis.

  • hamilcarr
  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    thanks for the info - I will try and get a paper or magazine article or even a book and read more about this

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    popularized by Lynn Margulis in the 90s.

    I thought she first put out a paper on the subject in the 60's?

    Either way I really like this essay of her's "Gaia is a tough bitch".

    http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html

    Among other things, she shreds the simplistic notion of evolution by random mutation.

    Human history has shown that a literal struggle for life is less beneficial for our species' future than cooperation and symbiosis.

    And may put an end to a very ugly paradigm that has inspired some of the world's most infamous regimes. I am not going to say the one I am thinking, Godwin's law and all that.

    BTS

  • BurnTheShips
  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    thought she first put out a paper on the subject in the 60's? up to the 1990s.

    I think Margulis remained a rather marginal figure within the scientific community, as evidenced by this quote from Dawkins

    In 1995, prominent Neo-Darwinist, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins had this to say about Lynn Margulis and her work:

    I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it. [5]
  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    I must be missing something. In what way is this a challenge for Darwinism, universal or otherwise?

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    In what way is this a challenge for Darwinism, universal or otherwise?

    It is not a challenge to Darwinism, but to neo-Darwinism.

    Please read my link above.

    BTS

    edit: neo-Darwinism of the kind espoused by the Dawkins. Just wanted to throw that in there to clarify.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    It isn't technically a challenge to Darwinism, Funky Derek. It is a challenge to Dawkinsian Neo-Darwinism which suggests that each organism is engaged in a separate, segregated fight to survive. Darwin didn't put this idea forward any more than Jesus promoted the notion that a European style government needed to be spread to the entire world. According to Margulis, it was an idea promoted by those who absorbed and incorrectly interpreted Darwin's ideas.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    BurnTheShips:

    It is not a challenge to Darwinism, but to neo-Darwinism.

    Please read my link above.

    OK, I've read it. I still don't see the issue. Endosymbiosis either happened as a result of random mutation, or in itself represents a kind of random macro-mutation, neither of which presents any problem in principle for neo-Darwinism, although it may have been an unpopular view when first suggested.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit