Evolution 2.0

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
In recent years there have been several great books written by some of the top "intelligence design" scientists, written for a lay readership.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer (2010)
Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information by William Dembski (2014)
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer (2014)
Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed by Douglas Axe (2016)
Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design by Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt (2018)

I haven't read that last one, but it's supposed to be pretty good, too. The first one is the book that Thomas Nagel cites in Mind & Cosmos as providing good reasons why Darwinism can't account for the facts. The second is more philosophical and technical. The third expands on the first, showing how the same principles that applied to the emergence of DNA apply to the emergence of body forms. And the fourth, by Axe (whose research was cited and discussed by Meyer in his books), makes the point the point that Laura quoted in her post above: "Evolution by natural selection lacks foresight."

Axe is the guy that did research on protein folding and how the odds are astronomically against one enzyme 'evolving by random mutation and natural selection' into another functional protein.

He also provides the reason why the ID crowd should not be lumped in with the creationism crowd. (I haven't read Evolution 2.0 yet, but it sounds like he goes a bit too far in the creationism direction.) Here's what he writes on that:

Axe said:
The truth is that ID and creationism have always differed fundamentally in their methods and starting assumptions. Creationism starts with a commitment to a particular understanding of the biblical text of Genesis and aims to reconcile scientific data with that understanding. ID, on the other hand, starts with a commitment to the essential principles of science and shows how those principles ultimately compel us to attribute life to a purposeful inventor - an intelligent designer. ID authors settle for this vague description not because they want to smuggle God into science but because the jump from 'intelligent designer' to 'God' requires something beyond the essential principles of science.
I've found that Christian theism often slips into the writings of the ID crowd too, but the best of them are able to keep their religion out of their science. And when they do that, they leave the door open as to the nature of the intelligent designer, which is helpful.
 

genero81

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I've found that Christian theism often slips into the writings of the ID crowd too, but the best of them are able to keep their religion out of their science. And when they do that, they leave the door open as to the nature of the intelligent designer, which is helpful.
Perry Marshall does a good job of keeping the ID crowd separate from the, what he calls, Young Earth Creationist crowd. He does however, make the leap of assumption that God must be the coder (in so many words) Even so, it's a great read especially for the lay person. Easy to understand. (Evolution 2.0)
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Perry Marshall does a good job of keeping the ID crowd separate from the, what he calls, Young Earth Creationist crowd. He does however, make the leap of assumption that God must be the coder (in so many words) Even so, it's a great read especially for the lay person. Easy to understand. (Evolution 2.0)
Yes, I listen to his audiobook (which he narrates himself), and he gives a good overview of all the recent new or discarded discoveries in this area, and how DNA changes may happen more more rapidly. Laura wrote about it in this post. Totally fascinating!
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I've found that Christian theism often slips into the writings of the ID crowd too, but the best of them are able to keep their religion out of their science. And when they do that, they leave the door open as to the nature of the intelligent designer, which is helpful.
I noticed that in Marshall's book too - isn't it interesting that the Christian crowd is so much ahead in many ways compared to the dogmatic materialist people and most "respected scientists"?

Perry Marshall does a good job of keeping the ID crowd separate from the, what he calls, Young Earth Creationist crowd. He does however, make the leap of assumption that God must be the coder (in so many words) Even so, it's a great read especially for the lay person. Easy to understand. (Evolution 2.0)
Personally, I don't think Marshall slips into dogmatism or "religious thinking" much, if at all. He even says at some point that his religious view doesn't depend at all on how evolution unfolded (contrary to the creationist types) - he would be fine either way. I guess his religious views (and this might be true for many Christians) give him a starting point, a justification/reason for daring to question the neo-darwinian orthodoxy and looking at the counter-evidence. But for intelligent, non-fundamentalist Christians, I guess their faith doesn't depend on the details of evolution. For the hardcore materialists on the other hand, anything but "random mutation" contradicts their whole way of looking at the world! No wonder that these are the real fundies and witch hunters nowadays!
 

genero81

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Personally, I don't think Marshall slips into dogmatism or "religious thinking" much, if at all. He even says at some point that his religious view doesn't depend at all on how evolution unfolded (contrary to the creationist types) - he would be fine either way.
Yes, I would agree for the main text he stays pretty objective, but did you read appendix 2? That seemed a little weird to me to include that in the book, even as an appendix. I did take into consideration, however, that for some people the Bible is their source for truth or spiritual knowledge. We're lucky to have the C's

For the hardcore materialists on the other hand, anything but "random mutation" contradicts their whole way of looking at the world! No wonder that these are the real fundies and witch hunters nowadays!
No kidding! And they can be condescending to boot. All the while completely blind to their own fundamentalist fairy tales.
 

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Yes, I would agree for the main text he stays pretty objective, but did you read appendix 2? That seemed a little weird to me to include that in the book, even as an appendix. I did take into consideration, however, that for some people the Bible is their source for truth or spiritual knowledge. We're lucky to have the C's
I just got done reading Evolution 2.0 and, what you say about Appendix 2, well to me, he really is trying to make Genesis out to be factual. I suppose that you can interpret things to mean what you want them to mean in any given circumstance. I have to say that I was rather put-off by it. I guess that's because he seems to be taking the Bible as "truth", or so it seems to me. But the main portion of the book was really good and interesting. I really liked it. It makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals doing something that they don't do.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I just got done reading Evolution 2.0 and, what you say about Appendix 2, well to me, he really is trying to make Genesis out to be factual. I suppose that you can interpret things to mean what you want them to mean in any given circumstance. I have to say that I was rather put-off by it. I guess that's because he seems to be taking the Bible as "truth", or so it seems to me. But the main portion of the book was really good and interesting. I really liked it. It makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals doing something that they don't do.
He should apply the same research methods and throughness to a study of the Bible.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I just got done reading Evolution 2.0 and, what you say about Appendix 2, well to me, he really is trying to make Genesis out to be factual. I suppose that you can interpret things to mean what you want them to mean in any given circumstance. I have to say that I was rather put-off by it. I guess that's because he seems to be taking the Bible as "truth", or so it seems to me. But the main portion of the book was really good and interesting. I really liked it. It makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals doing something that they don't do.
Yep, I hadn't read the appendix when I first read the book but now did after genero81's remarks, and his "interpretation" of Genesis seems like a classic example of how blind belief can switch-off an otherwise great mind. It's crazy, since in this very appendix, he makes some excellent remarks about how you can't read the bible as science, but then goes ahead and does precisely that :huh:
 

RyanAM

Padawan Learner
I finished reading virolution. The information is quite a lot to think about. I rather frowned at how he said big pharma and the like are putting big money into epigenetics and turning genes on or off. These sound good against disease and the like. However it sounds like this could become very bad in a hurry. Will have to keep gaining new information on this and watch the show.
 

Gandalf

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The biology of belief: Unleashing the power of consciousness, matter, and miracles
by Bruce Lipton (2005)
"Lipton challenges the long-held belief that experiences and character are determined by our genes. You have heard
phrases such as: it must be in my genes; depression runs in my family; and she’s got some of the family’s ‘bad’ genes.
The prevailing belief is that we are locked into our way of living in the world by our genetic makeup. Lipton, however,
suggests that this belief is a myth. In fact, every one of our 75 trillion cells is not controlled by genes, but by the
environment. He states “it is a single cell’s ‘awareness’ of the environment, not its genes, that sets into motion the
mechanisms of life”.
The implications of this are staggering."
This concept certainly provides added impetus for working to increase our attention and awareness.
I'm reading that book now and it is very interesting.

Here are some quotes:

The point: a cell is a “programmable chip” whose behavior and genetic activity are primarily controlled by environmental signals, not genes.

I had been trained as a nucleus-centered biologist as surely as Copernicus had been trained as an Earth-centered astronomer, so it was with a jolt that I realized that the gene-containing nucleus does not program the cell. Environmental data is entered into the cell/computer via the membrane’s receptors, which represent the cell’s “keyboard.” Receptors trigger the membrane’s effector proteins, which act as the cell/computer’s “Central Processing Unit” (CPU).

The function of the computer’s CPU is to convert incoming data into the binary code language used by the computer’s operating system. The receptor-effector protein complexes represent a functional complement of a computer’s CPU processor. Incoming environmental information is passed from the receptor to the effector protein, which in turn converts the incoming signal into the behavioral language of biology.
However, neuroscience has now established that the conscious mind runs the show, at best, only about 5 percent of the time. It turns out that the programs acquired by the subconscious mind shape 95 percent or more of our life experiences. (Szegedy-Maszak 2005)
All that was interesting, but the most exciting finding was when I simultaneously introduced both histamine and adrenaline into my tissue cultures. I found that adrenaline signals, released by the central nervous system, override the influence of histamine signals that are produced locally.
The majority of bioscientists are conventional Newtonians—if it isn’t matter, it doesn’t count. The “mind” is a nonlocalized energy and therefore is not relevant to materialistic biology. Unfortunately, that bias is a “belief” that has been proven to be patently incorrect in a quantum mechanical universe!
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Awhile back I finished reading Evolution 2.0 and Virolution. They were a great refresher on a number of things I learned in university. It is altogether unsettling though how so much of our genome (at least 43%) is viral in origin. It could be indicative of a pretty rough past, with so many parasitic relationships with viruses eventually becoming symbiotic over time, if only after so much culling of those who weren't able to integrate the viral genome into their own DNA. It almost seems like a metaphor for how suffering approached with the right intentions and attitude produces knowledge and so growth in being ultimately. That may be a lot to read into it, of course.
 

Argos

A Disturbance in the Force
Hello, very interesting, in this kind of research on our origins there is also the French paleoanthropologist Anne Dambricourt, her book "The cursed legend of the twentieth century, The Darwinian error" is very enlightening on the links between materialism and the individualism, and these discoveries are as simple as they are surprising: it measured the angles of the bones of the skulls and found a rule of harmonic evolution that follows a trajectory that owes nothing to the forces of chaos, mathematical measurements on bones that completely contradict the Darwinian theory, the authorities of the scientific thought reacted very hard with her, I did not find an English translation of her book, I translated some pieces to share:


"Preface by René Lenoir:
A discovery that makes sense
Anne Dambricourt is a paleontologist. She has studied the skull of primates for sixty million years, then that of men for the last three million. His discovery can be schematized as follows:
-The skull organization is set up between the seventh and eighth embryonic weeks. Embryogenesis is therefore necessary to understand the mechanisms of anatomical evolution. As a result, evolution of the skull in primates is not a question of locomotion induced by changes in the environment. Embryogenesis is the "place" of expression of the process of hominization;
-Homisation is a process, that is to say a chain of cause and effect, it is deterministic. The genetic memory that encodes embryonic development is copied. The evolution observed over sixty million years is ordered, it is ours.
.....

"The book presents an important discovery about our origins. It is not paleontological, it is scientific, it is the induction of a natural law by the analysis of the formation of the skull and its transformations in the fossils. This law reveals a first level of reality quite objective that breaks the neo-Darwinian conception of the origins of humanity. Our origins are those of embryonic development and are not the result of genetic copy errors. We are a process in progress. »...

"Cranio-facial contraction
The discovery of cranio-facial contraction was published in 1988 in the proceedings of the Academy of Sciences and follows a doctoral thesis from the National Museum of Natural History presented in winter 1987 to the prehistory laboratory. It is based on a study on the evolution of lower jaw shape in modern and fossil primates, during phylogeny, that is, during development, and then over long geological time periods. . It is based on the observation of hundreds of current mandibles and fossils of primates, placed in the cranial context already well studied and measured. The statistics and descriptions are available in the thesis in deposits at the library of this laboratory. This discovery is scientific simply because it is the result of the study of concrete facts, fossils, according to the classical method of objective description, that is, measurement. ...

If we compare the skulls of the oldest primates (prosimians) with that of the current man, we note the differences as the face-or muzzle in front of the brain and the neck in the prolongation of the snout. In section, the base of the skull is almost flat in the adult. It is by comparing the bone space between the neck and the face, that is to say by comparing the base of the skull in section on the one hand and in lower view on the other hand, that we understand this which has changed between fossil primates and the present man. But we did not know how to explain the origin of these changes. For this, we must know the bones of the base of the skull, their position and their shape, including a bone little studied, placed in the center of the skull and under the brain, named sphenoid. He receives the pituitary gland anchored in a sort of alcove. ...

The sphenoid is essential to understand the evolution of the skull of primates since 60 million years. We are just starting to take it into consideration. No thesis in human paleontology has ever studied the morphological evolution of this bone. It is for this reason that the cranio-facial evolution of is still not understood and that profound upheavals comparable to a cultural revolutions will gradually cross the disciplinary fields which are interested in the origins of our biological existence. This study is part of the mandible to go back to the base of the skull with which it is articulated. ...

The embryos of the fossil species have all developed from a flat skull, all of which have undergone the rotation of the embryonic brain, but at a different amplitude. And it is this rotation that has evolved at each fork, not in a disordered way, but in a stable way. The amplitude resumes the ancestral trajectory, but it extends each time a little more. The cartilaginous tissues are then formed in a given deflexion context which corresponds to a craniofacial contraction amplitude. From the first prosimians to Homo sapiens, we thus discover a cranio-facial evolution of embryonic origin, ordered in space and not random, the angles open (or close) between two groups, always in the same direction angular. These are spatial reorganizations of the skeleton that take up the trajectories, ie rotations or spirals, and thus the base of the skull of Homo sapiens is a contracted and enlarged structure under the brain, with a raised throat bottom . This is the third correlative discovery of the other two. The great angular differences have been known since the beginning of comparative anatomy; they have nothing new in themselves. What is revolutionary is the discovery of the embryonic origin of the changes and the considerable implications for the evolutionary properties of the genome, ours, in particular, which contains the memories of construction, thus the memory of reconstruction of the skull. ...

To summarize, the discovery has three strong points: the angular correlations between the base and the face (1), their establishment during the embryonic period (2) and the contance of the process of flexion contraction since the first fossil primates up to to current men (3). ...

Theory, mathematics and strange attractors
It is therefore no longer enough to collect measurements. It is necessary to formalize, that is, to transcribe ontogenetic and phylogenetic cranio-facial evolution in mathematical terms. As early as 1988, having taken cognizance of recent discoveries in dento maxillofacial orthopedics, it was important to place the discovery in a suitable theoretical context, which deals with physics, since the studied material is a mineralized solid, which is nothing more than the imprint of a biophysics, of which one seeks precisely to transcribe the principles, or the laws, or even the equations. ...

The concept of strange attractor is valid to describe the cranio facial evolution, since the system is deterministic, but it is then necessary to distinguish two types of phase spaces. The one discovered for the evolution of the skull is not chaotic, because, beyond the phases of bifurcation which are the periods of reorganizations, the causal effect remains unchanged. There is no dissipation of evolutionary memory. The attractor is strange, but not chaotic, it has been named harmonic in relation to the preservation of memory. The strange chaotic attractor then becomes a particular states of a strange harmonic attractor. This difference corresponds to the fossils that appear in geological strata around two million years ago in Africa, with skulls named Homo and other Paranthopus. The embryonic reorganization "Paranthrop" is not generalized at the base of the skull, there is no reiteration of the process and the evolutionary memory is abortive. The phylum goes out. In this case the attractor is chaotic compared to the one that describes the reorganization grand ape and Homo. The notion of dissipation, physical, finds here a mathematical formalism; the chaotic state of a strange attractor is consecutive to the evolution of a parameter of the equations, which can be described as "loss of information".

The physical state following a dissipation of information would be mathematically translated by the evolution of a strange harmonic attractor into a strange chaotic attractor. The concept of harmonic attractor is published in an article referred (reread by professionals) and it defines a new family of mathematical objects formalizable from the quantified report of cranio facial contraction. Whose evolutionary process can be mathematically transcribed from equations calculated from angle measurements. The space of the harmonic phases does not translate more than what the angles show. It is not an attractor that has been discovered, in the physical sense of the term, but it is a new formalization of biological evolution that refers to unknown physical parameters where time as memory is founder. The only difference is that the human gaze on angles that always close in the same direction can take the form of a mathematical graphical representation that is not that of a chaotic dynamic system.
Everything is scientific and conceptually scientific. Yet this discovery will experience an extraordinary campaign of denigration, defamation and misinformation."


And I found this in English : The Last Threshold – Anne Dambricourt Malassé – Inference

Some pieces :

My own research suggested that changes in mandibular shape, during ontogeny and phylogeny, reflect the straightening of the skull base and mark the inception of upright posture. These changes had nothing to do with diet and chewing, or locomotion. The mandibular joints articulate with the erect part of the skull base and depend on both the neural straightening and the transversal development of the cerebral hemispheres. The mandible and the degree of verticality of the skull base are both sapiens during embryogenesis. Mosaic evolution did not apply to the cranio-caudal body plan of primates. Neural trajectories change during embryo formation; neural straightening results as successive thresholds are crossed. This straightening, and thus the vertical positioning of the cerebellum, takes place in the amniotic fluid at scales of a few millimeters, along with a complete reorganization of the spatial morphogenesis of the supporting tissues that will form the skeleton.

….

NEURAL STRAIGHTENING FROM Australopithecus to Homo is linked to the development of the nervous system. This explains the straightening of not only the base of the skull but also the whole vertebral column. The neural tube is formed by fibers lengthening along its path above the notochord. Complex movements at stage nineteen of embryonic development, corresponding to the axis of rotation, can be seen above the point at which the dorsal cord terminates. Hominization begins precisely at the cephalic limit of the dorsal cord.

Remarkable.

The sole vertebrate embryo in which the dorsal cord extremity is almost verticalized is that of Homo sapiens. This is a process that began around thirty-nine million years ago in an Asian species of prosimian that underwent a contraction in the base of its skull and a declination of its brain stem. This produced the first degree of neural straightening and cranio-facial contraction in the simians. Twenty-three million years ago, at least one African species of small gibbon-like simians underwent further contraction and declination. This produced the second degree of neural straightening. The embryonic dorsal cord was almost vertical among many species of great apes, remaining so until adulthood. This was presumably the case, at least, with respect to Australopithecus (4.5–1.977 mya).43Thereafter the process accelerated, at an unprecedented rate. The lowered cerebellum and straightened brain stem is that of Homo sapiens, which Linnaeus named in 1758 and which emerged in East Africa 160,000 years ago. The evolutionary trajectory follows the straightening of the dorsal cord, but during the first stages of verticalization there was no dramatic accompanying increase in brain volume. Cranial volume is thus no longer the benchmark, or rubicon. The benchmark is, in fact, the straightening of the skull base.

The first stage is that of the hominin, which includes at least two embryogeneses, Australopithecus and Homo. The term is not Linnaean, but it avoids the contemporary confusion which includes gorillas and chimpanzees in the same family as Homo sapiens, yet excludes the orangutan. These groupings do not reflect observed morphogenetic structures and also serve to mask the presence of thresholds, namely, the discontinuities which have divided paleontologists. The trajectory of evolution from the first primates to Homo sapiens is defined by the increasing complexity of the nervous system. But this process was not gradual and not limited to the cerebral hemispheres. Neural embryogenesis increased in complexity, while the supporting tissues that would become the skeleton were transformed. Hence the thresholds and angular discontinuities. This is the process at the origin of neural straightening, in particular that of the cerebellum.

Embryonic axial straightening is a dynamic epiphenomenon resulting from a change in the gene regulation controlling the cephalocaudal axis. This evolution is not related to a change in habitat. Changes are produced in the amniotic fluid over a distance of several millimeters, reiterating a process that appeared in the genome with the emergence of the great apes. Australopithecus represents a threshold of neuronal complexity. The rotation of the neural tube was prolonged for longer than for any great ape, and thus the central nervous system became completely vertical. Permanent bipedalism appeared as a result. No paleontologist would suggest it was necessary for a species to become erect in order to begin walking exclusively on the ground. Gibbons and siamangs today are arboreal and walk easily on two legs.

An evolution similar to the emergence of australopithecines is seen with Telanthropus. This new conformation remains that of the Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, and Atlanthropus, but none of them attained the embryonic folding that belongs to Homo sapiens. Their basicranial axial skeleton is less verticalized, and this remains true of the Neanderthals (Eurasia, extinct around 28,000 years ago) and of Homo floresiensis (Indonesia, extinct around 80,000 years ago). Nothing in their neural and skeletal morphogenesis corresponds to the organizational structure of Homosapiens.

It is necessary to name this ontogenesis. Do we call it Homo and exclude the embryogenesis of present humanity? Or do we give it a name like Paleoanthropus? I chose Homo because it is how, since 1964, all fossils that were once classified as Paleoanthropus are classified, regardless of cranial capacity and diet-related variations in tooth enamel.44

I have retained sapiens for the last threshold."
 

JGeropoulas

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I saw this video recently which said scientific evidence shows humans are still evolving and, in the past 5,000 years, at a rate faster than the previous 6 million years. In fact, 7% of human genes have undergone recent evolution. Some examples are: 35% of people are now born without wisdom teeth needed for chewing tough foods. Those living in high altitudes of Tibet produce more hemoglobin to maximize oxygen transport. A lactose tolerance gene has become widespread in Europe. And, hopefully due to increased efficiency (vs. decreased use), human brains have shrunk 10% over the last 30,000 years.

 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Paternal mtDNA can be passed to the offspring?

Biparental inheritance of mitochondrial DNA in humans
November 27, 2018
New paper Biparental Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA in Humans, by Luo et al. PNAS (2018).

Interesting excerpts (emphasis mine):

Abstract

Although there has been considerable debate about whether paternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) transmission may coexist with maternal transmission of mtDNA, it is generally believed that mitochondria and mtDNA are exclusively maternally inherited in humans. Here, we identified three unrelated multigeneration families with a high level of mtDNA heteroplasmy (ranging from 24 to 76%) in a total of 17 individuals. Heteroplasmy of mtDNA was independently examined by high-depth whole mtDNA sequencing analysis in our research laboratory and in two Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and College of American Pathologists-accredited laboratories using multiple approaches. A comprehensive exploration of mtDNA segregation in these families shows biparental mtDNA transmission with an autosomal dominantlike inheritance mode. Our results suggest that, although the central dogma of maternal inheritance of mtDNA remains valid, there are some exceptional cases where paternal mtDNA could be passed to the offspring. Elucidating the molecular mechanism for this unusual mode of inheritance will provide new insights into how mtDNA is passed on from parent tooffspring and may even lead to the development of new avenues for the therapeutic treatment for pathogenic mtDNA transmission.​
An example

Compared with Family A, a strikingly similar mtDNA transmission pattern was demonstrated in Families B and C. Taking Family B for illustration, II-3 having 29 heteroplasmic and seven homoplasmic variants should have inherited mtDNA from both his father (I-1, haplogroup of K1b2a) and his mother (I-10, haplogroup of H), who were supposed to possess 34 and nine homoplasmic variants, respectively. II-3 further transmitted his mtDNA that he inherited from I-1 to his son (III-2), who also inherited all of his mother’s mtDNA (II-30, carrying 34 variants and a haplogroup of T2a1a). However, III-2’s sister (III-1) and half-brother (III-5) only inherited the maternal mtDNA. Fresh blood sampling and repeated mtDNA sequencing in a second independent laboratory were also performed to rule out the possibility of sample mix-up for III-2 (III-2, column F-G and H-I). Additionally, these samples were further verified using Pacific Bio single molecular sequencing (see Materials and Methods) and by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of Family A, and these results were fully consistent with the previous sequencing.​

Biparental mtDNA inheritance pattern shown in Family B. (A) Pedigree of Family B. The black filled symbols indicate the two family members (II-3 and III-2) showing biparental mtDNA transmission. The IDs of five family members tested by whole mtDNA sequencing analysis have been underlined in the pedigree. (B) Schematic of the mtDNA genotype defined by the homoplasmic and/or heteroplasmic variants aligned from the reference mitochondrial genome. Blue bars represent the genotype of paternally derived mtDNA, whereas purple-red and orange-red bars represent maternally derived mtDNA. Entries labeled (D) represent deduced mtDNA genotypes. (C) Summary of the haplogroup and mtDNA variant numbers in Family B.

A Resurgence of the Paternal Transmission Hypothesis

The results presented in this paper make a robust case for paternal transmission of mtDNA. Here, we report biparental mtDNA inheritance (either directly or indirectly) in 17 members in three multigeneration families. Thirteen of these individuals were identified directly by sequencing of the mitochondrial genome, whereas four could be inferred based on preexisting maternal heteroplasmy caused by biparental inheritance in the previous generation.
To further confirm these remarkable results and to exclude the possibility of sample mix-up and/or contamination, the whole mtDNA sequencing procedure was repeated independently in at least two different laboratories by different laboratory technicians with newly obtained blood samples. All results were reproducible, indicating no artifacts or contamination exist. More importantly, the multiple mtDNA variants that were paternally transmitted differ in both number and position among each of these three families as well as the related haplogroup (R0a1 in Family A, K1b2a in Family B, and K2b1a1a in Family C, respectively), providing two distinct forms of evidence supporting transmission of the paternal mtDNA.​
Therefore, we have unequivocally demonstrated the existence of biparental mtDNA inheritance as evidenced by the high number and level of mtDNA heteroplasmy in these three unrelated multigeneration families. Most interestingly, the mixed haplogroups in these samples are very reminiscent of the mixed haplogroups found in the 20 studies that were dismissed by Bandelt et al. as due to contamination or sample mix-up. One is forced to wonder how many other instances of individuals with biparental mtDNA inheritance have been dismissed as technical errors, and whether Schwartz and Vissing’s original discovery has really been given the proper follow-up that it deserves. We suspect that these results will initiate a broader reassessment of the topic.​
We propose that the paternal mtDNA transmission in these families should be accompanied by segregation of a mutation in one nuclear gene involved in paternal mitochondrial elimination and that there is a high probability that the gene in question operates through one of the pathways identified above.​

If I have to be honest, I was stuck with the paternal transmission hypothesis which we were taught in class long ago. I didn’t know it was controversial or dismissed, I just thought it was really exceptional, and I never thought about learning more on the subject.

This paper proves it may be more complicated than that, especially for population genomics purposes, because biparental mtDNA transmission with autosomal dominant-like inheritance puts a serious barrier to a general, simplistic interpretation of mtDNA.

I don’t think it is a blow to all interpretations based on mtDNA, though, because the traditional interpretation should often work statistically. However, one has to be always very careful when saying “if it’s mtDNA from region X, it’s about female exogamy”, especially when samples are from neighbouring regions and similar periods.

The term “uniparental marker” for mtDNA is obviously misleading and shouldn’t be used, and many research papers and interpretations taking mtDNA as strictly uniparental should be taken with a pinch of salt.
 

Mike

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I just finished the book last night. It is an easy read for a complex subject and the author I think makes the topic engaging and interesting. The book really has made me think just how amazing living things are and have a new sense of awe in general. Also, from my thoughts below on information systems just how important working on oneself is.

It has really made me think about a number of things. Two ideas or questions being:

- What exactly acts as the impetus or thing that executes the code of the DNA in cells? Kind of like a person at computer (an intelligence) is the impetus for the computer to run or activate programs on the computer. It seems to me to be one thing that DNA is code and another thing to figure out what is telling it to run or execute its program. The C's mentioned that DNA is a receiver of sorts. Does the universal information system that DNA receives from also carry the impetus (act as the intelligence) to execute the DNA code? Or is DNA simply running its code based on what a person takes in as food as the source of energy that act as the impetus. That doesn't seem to satisfy that the cell/DNA acts intelligently on its own though and it bugs me that food that a being takes in just doesn't seem enough to act as the only executing agent of the DNA code and its apparent individual intelligence. Another possibility is the subconscious mind might have a connection with DNA execution in some way since it runs the body's systems without conscious awareness and so there might be a connection between the DNA information system and a person’s unconscious mind, which could be seen also an information system, executing the code of DNA.

- The topic of DNA as code and that it is designed got me thinking about information systems as it relates to reality. Things that can be seen as information systems or have been identified in discussions on the forum or with the C’s as information systems:

1. DNA – as discussed in the book and on the forum.

2. The human mind both conscious and unconscious – it is like the brain has two information systems or maybe three. The unconscious mind which regulates the body, etc. The conscious mind where a person makes decision and takes actions. And maybe the subconscious mind is a third information system different from the unconscious mind running the body.

3. The Soul as an information system – so this would mean that the soul can be coded in some way (ie learn and change with experience) and I have trouble thinking about information systems that don’t necessarily have to be connected to material or physicality.

4. Universal information system/Cosmic Mind

We are information systems built from (Cells- DNA), networked and/or connected with other information systems (mind and soul) which are embedded in an overarching information system of the Cosmic Mind or Universal Mind.

We are all unique coded information and information systems that interconnect and interact together (DNA/Body/Mind/Consciousness/Soul (if a person has one). We are both program, programmer and operator/executioner of our information system’s code at various levels and depending on various levels of awareness and knowledge. And that these information systems of code overlap, connect and can network together. We in order to grow need to learn through the Work, and other means such as DNA tests, to understand our code (learned personality (ie false personality), Real I/essence/Soul) and thus have the ability to expand or adjust/re-program our program/information system.

The human mind/consciousness, as well as in connection with the DNA information system and soul information system, that when developed, aware, knowledgeable, and in control can connect to the higher self (higher intellectual center (4D self?) – another information system?).

There are more thoughts and information in connection to this that relates to info from the C’s etc, but I’m going to take a break and let it sit so that I don’t bake my noodle, because at times when thinking about this stuff I’m like this is baked noodle territory.:nuts:
 
Top Bottom