Two for One or Twice as Fast Selection (biology)

Got a great idea? Tell the world about it here.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Two for One or Twice as Fast Selection (biology)

Postby Tom Hendricks » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:33 pm

Two for one or twice as fast selection.

Looking at life as a catabolic / anabolic split may help explain punctuated equilibrium, symbiosis, and why there is natural selection if most mutations are negative.

The opposite but complimentary processes of catabolic and anabolic may be a motor that pushes natural selection more quickly than we had thought. Most positive changes in one side will promote a positive change in the other to catch up. Example. Human brain size grew. That was a selective advantage. But to do that the hominids needed more energy to supply the brains needs. Brain growth demanded improvements of energy. OR it could have been the other way around, and improvements on the catabolic side may have allowed the anabolic side to build larger brains. Either way a change on one side demanded a catch up improvement on the other.

This speedier natural selection process would help explain punctuated equilibrium and why species seldom change, but when they do they seem to change in a major way.

This speedier natural selection process would also help explain the symbiosis idea of Lynn Margulis. Except in this case it is not the symbiosis of two different species, but the symbiotic changes due to the opposite but complimentary processes of catabolic and anabolic.

Selection on either catabolic or anabolic side puts pressure on the other side for change to match. If not then we have an impossible situation where every mutation would have an instant matching mutation on its counterpart. Ex. a positive mutation on catabolic processes, would have to have an exact instant positive mutation on the connected anabolic process, and that seems foolish at best. Example note fat storage. That clearly shows that the catabolic and anabolic processes do not work exactly in tandem at the same time. How could fat reserves be stored if it did? Therefore it seems highly plausible that the two opposite but complimentary processes, have evolved separately, and are regulated separately for the flexible advantages that gives.

Comments on these controversial ideas?
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Postby Tom Hendricks » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:18 am

We can also look at it the other way.

Two more points to consider:
1. Response to the argument that catabolic and anabolic did NOT evolve separately.

IF catabolic and anabolic did not evolve separately, that means they evolved together. That means that every positive mutation on the catabolic side instantly produced a matching positive mutation on the anabolic side. That means that for every mutation there were really 2 mutations - one on the catabolic side, and one on the anabolic side. We should see mutations in pairs. This is not the case. Clearly mutations do not come in pairs. Clearly a mutation on one side does not instantly lead to a matching mutation on the other. This suggests to me that catabolic and anabolic processes evolved separately - a key argument to my hypothesis.

2. Response to the argument that catabolic and anabolic processes blended and did not evolve separately.

IF catabolic and anabolic processes blended through time, then they would not be separate today. Clearly there are separate catabolic and anabolic processes today. That means they have stayed separate over billions of years; and that separation of these anabolic and catabolic processes has been selected for.
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm


Return to Great Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests