Developmental biologist proposes new theory of early animal evolution, challenges basic assumptions

Oct 11, 2012

A New York Medical College developmental biologist whose life's work has supported the theory of evolution has developed a concept that dramatically alters one of its basic assumptions—that survival is based on a change's functional advantage if it is to persist. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D., professor of cell biology and anatomy, offers an alternative model in proposing that the origination of the structural motifs of animal form were actually predictable and relatively sudden, with abrupt morphological transformations favored during the early period of animal evolution.

Newman's long view of evolution is fully explained in his perspective article, "Physico- in the Evolution of Development," which is to be published in the October 12 issue of the journal Science, in a special section called Forces in Development. The paper has been selected for early online publication and a podcast interview with the scientist.

Evolution is commonly thought to take place opportunistically, by , with each change persisting, or not, based on its functional advantage. Newman's alternative model is based on recent inferences about the genetics of the single-celled ancestors of the animals and, more surprisingly, the physics of "middle-scale" materials.

Animal bodies and the embryos that generate them exhibit an assortment of recurrent "morphological motifs" which, on the evidence of the , first appeared more than a half billion years ago. During of present-day animals, cells arrange themselves into tissues having non-mixing layers and interior cavities. Embryos contain patterned arrangements of cell types with which they may form segments, exoskeletons and blood vessels. Developing bodies go on to fold, elongate, and extend , and in some species, generate endoskeletons with repeating elements (e.g., the human hand).

These developmental motifs are strikingly similar to the forms assumed by nonliving condensed, chemically active, viscoelastic materials when they are organized by relevant physical forces and effects, although the mechanisms that generate the motifs in living are typically much more complex. Newman proposes that the ancestors of the present-day animals acquired these forms when ancient single-celled organisms came to reside in multicellular clusters and physical processes relevant to matter at this new (for cellular life) spatial scale were immediately mobilized.

The unicellular progenitors are believed to have contained genes of the "developmental-genetic toolkit" with which all present-day animals orchestrate embryonic development, though they used the genes for single-cell functions. It was precisely these genes whose products enabled the ancestral clusters to harness the middle-scale physical effects that produced the characteristic motifs. And since not every ancestral cluster contained the same selection of toolkit genes, different body forms arose in parallel, giving rise to the modern morphologically distinct animal phyla.

Natural selection, acting over the hundreds of millions of years since the occurrence of these origination events led, according to Newman's hypothesis, to more complex developmental processes which have made embryogenesis much less dependent on potentially inconsistent physical determinants, although the "physical" motifs were retained. As Newman describes in his article, this new perspective provides natural interpretations for puzzling aspects of the early evolution of the animals, including the "explosive" rise of complex body forms between 540 and 640 million years ago and the failure to add new motifs since that time. The model also helps us to understand the conserved use of the same set of genes to orchestrate development in all of the morphologically diverse phyla, and the "embryonic hourglass" of comparative developmental biology: the observation that the species of a phylum can have drastically different trajectories of early embryogenesis (e.g., frogs and mice), but still wind up with very similar "body plans."

Explore further: Evolution of marine crocodilians constrained by ocean temperatures

More information: www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/217.abstract

Related Stories

Measuring evolution's waistline

Jun 03, 2011

Nearly 150 years ago, noted German biologist Ernst Haeckel made the bold assertion that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’: in other words, morphological changes that occur during an organism’s ...

Scientists give insight into 200-year-old riddle

Dec 10, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- University of Manchester researchers have played a vital role in an international study that has revived the 200-year-old question: why do different species share similar stages of embryonic ...

'Evolution: A Developmental Approach'

Jan 27, 2011

What separates humans from Chimpanzees? Is it the genetics of our population, or our different structures and behavior capabilities? To Professor Wallace Arthur it is all of these points, which is why his latest book Evolution: A ...

Examining evolution from a cellular perspective

Jan 25, 2012

The evolutionary processes of unicellular and multicellular organisms are continually under debate. John Torday, Ph.D., a lead investigator at Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute (LA BioMed), has recently co-authored ...

Recommended for you

Orb-weaving spiders living in urban areas may be larger

12 hours ago

A common orb-weaving spider may grow larger and have an increased ability to reproduce when living in urban areas, according to a study published August 20, 2014 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Eli ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BradynStanaway
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2012
"These developmental motifs are strikingly similar to the forms assumed by nonliving condensed, chemically active, viscoelastic materials when they are organized by relevant physical forces and effects, although the mechanisms that generate the motifs in living embryos are typically much more complex."

Evolutionary Fractals?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2012
Newman is one of the "Altenberg 16" [ http://www.archae...man.html ] that wishes to replace the simplicity of evolution with something more cumbersome (so more unlikely). He doesn't predict anything not being predicted by evolution or the taponomy of the pre-Edicarian soft-bodied biota. Especially the embryological bottleneck is understood as the outcome of constraints during controled reorganization.

FWIW, calcified sponges have now been found way back, ~ 760 Ma bp Otavia antiqua, so the sudden embryo idea sounds less likely today. [ http://www.sajs.c.../658/994 ]
MrVibrating
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2012
So if i understand correctly, should we discover a similarly complex alien ecology, all the various species will likely share the same HOX-type genes, and there'll be a preponderance of five-digited quadrupeds...

Well, that's reassuring to know. I suppose.
rebelclause
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2012
Does the view incorporate an organisms early 'jump potential' (radical morphology) in relation to any ability to sense the availability of chemical constituents of its biology and the elements beyond this to sustain life of itself and its colony?
jonnyboy
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2012
So if i understand correctly, should we discover a similarly complex alien ecology, all the various species will likely share the same HOX-type genes, and there'll be a preponderance of five-digited quadrupeds...

Well, that's reassuring to know. I suppose.


ahhhhhh, but will they have nice jugs?
KalinForScience
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2012
from what I read, it does not sound new to me... The ability of developmental genetic systems to organise living matter using the ubiquitous forces and processes of physics/physical chemistry, has been a paradigm for decades already...
KalinForScience
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
and the author's assumption does not challenge anything.. the strength of the article is in the nicely summarised and defined concepts... but the concepts themselves are NOT new.. so there is no new idea there... at least in my mind.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2012
The author 'simply' expresses his need for a symbiotic relationship.
Between what is labeled the 'inanimate' and 'animate'.

To have a 'force' behind evolution is insufficient, incomplete and necessary.
To have a 'force' behind Nature that is 'unavoidable' for what we label 'life'.
(Appears more sufficient, complete and necessary.(?)

Is the concept 'lifeless' planet a thorn in the author's side?