Jonathan McLatchie explains irreducible complexity

Listen to Jonathan McLatchie's explanation of irreducible complexity and why it represents a problem for the "neo-Darwinian paradigm." Keep in mind that he has been asked to do this by a Christian pastor on an Christian apologetics podcast. I wonder why?

McLatchie claims that an irreducibly complex system consist of a number of subfunctions where the removal of one subfunction renders the whole system nonfunctional. He implies that such systems can't be explained by evolution. Do all ID proponents agree? If we can show you a reasonable evolutionary explanation of the evolution of a single irreducibly complex system, using McLatchie's definition, would that refute his claim that such systems present a challenge to evolution? How about if we show you two examples? Three?

---

Emile Zuckerkandl and the 50th anniversary of the birth of molecular evolution

Emile Zuckerkandl (1922-2013) and Linus Pauling (1901-1994) published a paper on the evolution of proteins back in 1964. The original paper was published first in a Russian translation. The English version appeared in 1965 and that paper marks the beginning of the field of molecular evolution (Zuckerkandl and Pauling, 1965a).

Dan Graur has a nice post: Happy Birthday Molecular Evolution! You’re 50 Years Old. I stole the photo from Dan's post. It shows Linus Pauling (left) and Emile Zuckerkandl (right) in Japan in 1986.

Most of you have heard of Linus Pauling—he won two Nobel Prizes—but you've probably not heard of Emile Zuckerkandl. That's a shame because he made significant contributions to the field of molecular evolution. Those early papers (Zuckerkandl and Pauling, 1965a; Zuckerkandl and Pauling, 1965b; Zuckerkandl and Pauling, 1965c) were remarkably insightful.

One of my graduate students, Sharon Shtang, was so impressed with the "Evolving Genes and Proteins" paper that she quoted from it at the beginning of her Ph.D. thesis. The authors were commenting on the, then novel, use of amino acid sequences in proteins to demonstrate evolution. They were worried that some people would think this was overkill since evolution was a well-established fact. They said ... [On Beating Dead Horses]

Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, where here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life.

This is an obvious reference to creationism.

Does genome size affect fitness in seed beetles?

Many of us think that the C-Value Paradox isn't really a paradox any more. We think that the variations in genome size among different species can be explained because expansion and contraction of genome size is mostly neutral with respect to evolution and thus the differing sizes of genomes in different species is explained by random genetic drift. Only a small percentage of most eukaryotic genomes is actually functional and the rest is junk. In the case of the human genome, about 90% is junk DNA.

Some scientists aren't happy with this explanation of the C-Value Paradox so they have come up with other explanations to account for the differences in genome sizes. A recent paper by Arnqvist et al. (2015) suggests that genome size affects reproductive fitness in seed beetles.

The introduction to their paper is a nice summary of the controversy ...

What does this big number mean?

There's a big number (63,000) in the windows of a biology laboratory somewhere in the world. There's also a picture of Darwin so it probably has something to do with evolution.

What could it possibly mean? Can you guess before clicking on the answer at 63,000 Strong?

---

Major advances in genome biology

I recently stumbled on a paper with an intriguing title" "Sixty years of genome biology" (Doolittle et al., 2013). It celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Watson & Crick paper on the structure of DNA. The editors of Genome Biology describe key advances in genome biology.

Introns

Several editors (Graveley, Ule, Henikoff, Doolittle) said that the discovery of "genes in pieces" was a very significant advance in genome biology in the past sixty years. You can't argue with that.

Restriction Mapping

George Weinstock counts restriction mapping as a key advance. I understand his point since the development of restriction mapping gave us maps of the actual structure of the genome for the first time (genetic maps are imprecise and depend on the presence of mutations).

A new regulatory paradigm: micoRNA

John Rinn, who coincidentally works on small RNAs thinks this is a significant advance in genomics. I don't agree.

The original 'data explosion': microarrays

Alicia Oshlack is an astrophysicist who got into genomics through bioinformatics and the analysis of microarray data. Microarrays are important in genomics and should be included in any list of significant advances as long as the list includes technological advances.

Unlocking 'genetic messages': sequencing technologies

Michael Schatz says, "The most significant advance in genome biology since 25 April 1953 has been the rise of large-scale DNA sequencing ...." He is correct, if technologies are to be included in the list.

'Sequence is power': the human and mouse genome projects

Chris Ponting, Mark Gerstein, and Peter Fraser think that the publication of the human genome sequence is the most significant advance in genome biology. I suppose it depends on what you want to know about genomes. If your focus is on humans and medicine then, obviously, the sequence of the human genome is important. I thought the sequences of the yeast, nematode, and Drosophila genomes were pretty exciting and so were the sequences of bacterial genomes.

Retelling the human story: analysis of ancient and historical DNA

The is Detlef Weigel's contribution.

The exception to the rule: lateral gene transfer

Curtis Huttenhower thinks that the discovery of lateral gene transfer is "one of the most remarkable [discoveries] in the history of genome biology."

Nobody mentioned junk DNA and the resolution of the C-value paradox. Nobody mentioned the small number of genes in the human genome in spite of the fact that a great many articles begin with the claim that this was a shocking discovery [but see False History and the Number of Genes]. Jernej Ule mentioned alternative splicing but nobody else did in spite of the fact that many papers claim that most human genes are capable of making several different proteins. This is also a false claim, IMHO, but you'd never know that from reading the journal. Peter Fraser was the only one who mentioned the vast regulatory network of enhancers as claimed by the ENCODE Consortium. If true, that would clearly count as a major discovery. (It's not true.) Eukaryotic genomes are chock full of defective transposons but none of the editors thought that was a key advance in our understanding of the genome.

---

Doolittle, W.F., Fraser, P., Gerstein, M.B., Graveley, B.R., Henikoff, S., Huttenhower, C., Oshlack, A., Ponting, C.P., Rinn, J.L., Schatz, M., Ule, J., Weigel, D., and Weinstock, G.M. (2013) Sixty years of genome biology. Genome Biol, 14(4), 113. [doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-4-113]

Constructive Neutral Evolution (CNE)

Constructive Neutral Evolution (CNE) is a term that describes the evolution of complex systems by non-adaptive mechanisms. The idea (and the name) was developed by Arlin Soltzfus in 1999 (Stoltzfus, 1999) but it has antecedents in the literature and in the environment where Stoltzfus did his post-doc (Michael Gray and Ford Doolittle). It has been promoted by a number of prominent evolutionary biologists/population geneticists, notably Michael Lynch in his book The Origins of Genome architecture. Several examples have been described and discussed in the scientific literature and in popular books. For example, there is good reason to think that the evolution of the complex spliceosome that removes introns has evolved by mainly non-adaptive evolution.

Ford Doolittle and Michael Gray are fans of constructive neutral evolution. They and their collaborators wrote a review of the idea in Science (Gray et al., 2010). It has the provocative title "Irremediable Complexity." The same authors (different order) published another review the following year (Lukeš et al., 2011).

It's important to understand this concept because it challenges the idea that the evolution of complexity is adaptive and it sets the stage for challenging the idea that all adaptive structures arose exclusively by natural selection. Almost everyone who writes about constructive neutral evolution understands that it poses a problem for those who cling to adapatationist or selectionist views of evolution. It also helps us understand why the core idea behind irreducible complexity has been refuted.

Jim Lake and the Eocyte tree

I met James (Jim) Lake for the first time more than 20 years ago but I had a chance to talk to him more recently in Chicago in 2013 [People I Met in Chicago at SMBE2013].

He became famous (infamous?) for challenging the Three Domain Hypothesis of Carl Woese (and friends) and for advocating better methods of constructing gene trees. Jim Lake proposed that eukaryote nuclei arose from within the archaebacterial clade and not as a sister groups of Archaea as the Three Domain Hypothesis claimed. The sister group was the "eocytes," represented at the time by Sulfolobus solfataricus, an archaebacterium that lives in hot springs (~80°C) and uses sulfur as a source of energy.

The origin of eukaryotes and the ring of life

The latest issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Sept. 26, 2015) is devoted to Eukaryotic origins: progress and challenges. There are 16 articles and anyone interested in this subject has to read all of them.

Many (most) of you aren't going to do that so let me try and summarize the problem and the best current ideas on how to solve it. We begin with the introduction to the issue by the editors, Tom Williams, Martin Embley (Williams and Embly, 2015). Here's the abstract ...

A little learning of biochemistry ...

A little learning is a     dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the     Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts     intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely     sobers us again.
                  Alexander PopeI've been following Angelo Grasso on Facebook because he posts a lot of biochemistry stuff. His schtick is to post some complicated pathway or structure then marvel at how complex it is and how it had to be designed. For a while I was commenting on his posts in order to show him why his interpretation was wrong or misleading but he just kept posting more examples gleaned from biochemistry textbooks.

This is a classic examples of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. His latest post is about glycolysis and membrane-associated electron transport in animals. You can see it on the reasonandscience.heavenforum website: Glycolysis. Here's the bottom line ...

IDiots promote twenty-two falsified predictions of Darwin's theory of evolution

Cornelius Hunter is a fellow at the Center for Science and Culture (Discovery Institute). That makes him a card-carrying Intelligent Design Creationist.

He has a website called .DarwinsPredictions.

Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.

It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

I was reminded of these "predictions" a few days ago when Casey Luskin interviewed Cornelius Hunter in ID the Future: Casey Luskin and Cornelius Hunter Discuss Darwin's Predictions. I assume that most Sandwalk readers aren't familiar with all these false predictions of Darwinism so here they are with my own brief description.

Jerry Coyne doubles down on his criticism of how evolution is taught in Ontario schools

A few weeks ago, Jerry Coyne got his knickers in a knot because the Ontario school curriculum didn't specifically prescribe the teaching of evolution in the way that he would like [Ontario schools require teaching evolution—except human evolution].

I replied to that post, quoting the Ontario curriculum and pointing out that it was pretty damn good when it comes to evolution [Teaching evolution in Ontario Schools]. The curriculum concentrates on fundamental principles of evolution as they apply to all species. It does not cover any details of the history of life per se. It doesn't specifically mention the evolution of whales, or birds, or any other lineage. It doesn't say which examples have to be included in the classroom instruction. It refers frequently to the fact that humans are not different than any other animals when it comes to biology.

Jerry take this to mean that detailed descriptions of human evolution are specifically excluded and he now claims that this is due to government policy [Ontario school officials respond—or rather, fail to respond—to queries about why they don’t require teaching human evolution].

Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies by Graeme Finlay

Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies was published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press. The author is Graeme Finlay, a cancer researcher at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

I first learned about this book from a book review published in the journal Evolution (Johnson, 2014). It sounded interesting so I bought a copy and read it.

There are four main chapters and each one covers a specific topic related to genomes and function. The topics are: Retroviruses, Transposons, Pseudogenes, and New Genes. There's lots and lots of interesting information in these chapters including an up-to-date summary of co-opted DNA that probably serves a biologically relevant function in our genome. This is the book to buy if you want a good review of the scientific literature on those topics.

Eukaryotic genes come from alphaproteobacteria, cynaobacteria, and two groups of Archaea

Bill Martin and a group of collaborators from several countries have analyzed gene trees from a wide variety of species (Ku et al., 2015). They looked at the phylogenies of 2500 different genes with representatives in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

The goal of this massive project was to find out if you could construct reliable consensus trees of prokaryotes and eukaryotes given that lateral gene transfer (LGT)¹ is so common.

The results show that LGT is very common in prokaryotes making it quite difficult to identify the evolutionary history of prokaryotic groups based on just a small number of gene trees.

In contrast, eukaryotes appear to be a monophyletic group where all living eukaryotes are descendants of a single ancestral species. There's very little LGT in eukaryotic lineages apart from one major event in algae and plants (see below).

The genes currently found in eukaryotic genomes show that eukaryotes arose from an endosymbiotic event where a primitive alphabacterium fused with a primitive archaebacterium. The remnant of the alphaproteobacterium genome are still present in mitochondria but the majority of the bacterial genes have merged with archaebacterial genes in the nuclear chromosomes. Thus, eukaryotes are hybrids formed from two distantly related prokaryotic species.

A second round of new genes was acquired in eukaryotes when a primitve single-cell species merged with a species of cyanobacterium. The remnant of the cyanobactrial genome is found in chloroplasts but, like the case with alphaproteobacteria, the majority of the cyanobacterial genes merged with other genes in the nuclear genome.

The exact number of trees was 2,585. Among those trees, 49% of eukaryotic genes cluster with proteobacteria, 38% derive from cynaobacterial ancestors, and only 13% come from the archaebacterial ancestor. Thus, it's fair to say that the dominant ancestor of eukaryotes, in terms of genetic contribution, is bacterial, not archaeal.

One of the authors on the paper is James O. McInerney of the National University of Ireland, in Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland. He made a short video that explains the result.²

---

1. Also known as horizontal gene transfer (HGT).

2. I hate to contaminate a scientific post by referring to creationists but I can't help but wonder how they explain this data. I'd love it if some Intelligent Design Creationist could describe how this fits in with their understanding of the history of life.

Ku, C., Nelson-Sathi, S., Roettger, M., Sousa, F.L., Lockhart, P.J., Bryant, D., Hazkani-Covo, E., McInerney, J.O., Landan, G., Martin, W.F. (2015) Endosymbiotic origin and differential loss of eukaryotic genes. Nature Published online Aug. 19, 2015 [doi: 10.1038/nature14963]

The apophenia of ENCODE or Pangloss looks at the human genome

This is a paper in French by Casane et al. (2015). Most of you won't be able to read it but the English abstract gives you the gist of the argument. I had to look up "apophenia": "Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling."

In September 2012, a batch of more than 30 articles presenting the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements) project was released. Many of these articles appeared in Nature and Science, the two most prestigious interdisciplinary scientific journals. Since that time, hundreds of other articles dedicated to the further analyses of the Encode data have been published. The time of hundreds of scientists and hundreds of millions of dollars were not invested in vain since this project had led to an apparent paradigm shift: contrary to the classical view, 80% of the human genome is not junk DNA, but is functional. This hypothesis has been criticized by evolutionary biologists, sometimes eagerly, and detailed refutations have been published in specialized journals with impact factors far below those that published the main contribution of the Encode project to our understanding of genome architecture. In 2014, the Encode consortium released a new batch of articles that neither suggested that 80% of the genome is functional nor commented on the disappearance of their 2012 scientific breakthrough. Unfortunately, by that time many biologists had accepted the idea that 80% of the genome is functional, or at least, that this idea is a valid alternative to the long held evolutionary genetic view that it is not. In order to understand the dynamics of the genome, it is necessary to re-examine the basics of evolutionary genetics because, not only are they well established, they also will allow us to avoid the pitfall of a panglossian interpretation of Encode. Actually, the architecture of the genome and its dynamics are the product of trade-offs between various evolutionary forces, and many structural features are not related to functional properties. In other words, evolution does not produce the best of all worlds, not even the best of all possible worlds, but only one possible world.

---

Casane, D., Fumey, J., et Laurenti, P. (2015) L’apophénie d’ENCODE ou Pangloss examine le génome humain. Med. Sci. (Paris) 31: 680-686. [doi: 10.1051/medsci/20153106023]

IDiots, suckers, and the octopus genome

The genome of the small octopus, Octopus bimaculoides has recently been sequenced. The results are reported in Nature (Albertin et al., 2015).

The octopus is a cephalopod along with squid and cuttlefish. These groups diverged about 270 million years ago making them more distantly related than humans and platypus. As expected, the octopus genome is similar to other mollusc genomes but also shows some special derived features. Some gene families have been expanded—a feature often found in other genomes.

How do Intelligent Design Creationists deal with pseudogenes and false claims?

Some of the people who comment here have pointed out that this is the second anniversary of a post by Jonathan McLatchie on Evolution News & Views (sic): A Simple Proposed Model For Function of the Human Vitamin C GULO Pseudogene.

That post is significant for several reasons. Let's review a bit of background.

Intelligent Design Creationists have a problem with pseudogenes. Recall that pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble a gene but they appear to be non-functional because they have acquired disruptive mutations, or because they were never functional to begin with (e.g. processed pseudogenes). All genomes contain pseudogenes. The human genome has more than 15,000 recognizable pseudogenes.¹ This is not what you would expect from an intelligent designer so the ID crowd tries to rationalize the existence of pseudogenes by proposing that they have an unknown function.

Do Canadians "believe" in evolution?

A recent post by some anonymous blogger named "Darwin Quixote" made the following claim [see comment in: Be Careful, Evolution is Behind You]. The discussion was about teaching evolution in Ontario (Canada) schools ....

Of course I agree that these topics should be required, but I would suggest that it’s even more important that human evolution be a required topic because only 51% of Ontarians believe that humans evolved. It is likely that a significant number of teachers fall into the 49% category, and therefore leaving this topic to the discretion of the teacher becomes problematic.

This didn't seem right to me so I checked the latest polls that I could find on the internet.

Here's one by Angus Reid in 2012: Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution. The results show that 60% of Ontarians believe the following statement: "Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years."

24% of Ontarians thought that: "God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years."

16% were not sure.

The results were somewhat different in other provinces. In Quebec, for example, the number of people who accepted evolution was 71% and only 13% believed in Young Earth Creationism. In Alberta only 48% of the population accepted evolution and 35% were Young Earth Creationists.

So Darwin Quixote was off by a bit (51% vs 60%) but not by much. However, I think he makes an error by assuming that a significant number of biology teachers (in high school) would be opposed to evolution and might not teach human evolution.

---

Teaching evolution in Ontario Schools

In Ontario (Canada) there is a province-wide curriculum that all public schools must follow. This includes the Roman Catholic separate schools that receive money from the province. This post is prompted by something written last month by an anonymous blogger who runs Darwnquixote. He claims that human evolution is not taught in Ontario schools [Be Careful, Evolution is Behind You]. Jerry Coyne picks up on this and launches into a tirade about the Ontario curriculum [Ontario schools require teaching evolution—except human evolution]. Coyne urges everyone to write letters of complaint to the Ontario Minister of Education. (Her name is Liz Sandals and she is an excellent (not perfect) Minister of Education.) Is it true that the Ontario curriculum does not teach that humans have evolved?

I've been quite impressed with the science and technology curriculum as revised in 2008 and I'm hearing good things about the next revision. The teaching of evolution, like all aspects of the curriculum, focuses on understanding the basic concepts and on encouraging students to think for themselves. Students learn about evolution and diversity in the primary grades where the emphasis is on the relationship of humans and other species [The Ontario Curriculum: Elementary: Science and Technology]. In grade 1 they learn that "Plants and animals, including people, are living things" (page 44) and in Grade 2 one of the "big ideas" is that humans are animals (page 58).

David M. Raup (1933-2015)

David Raup died last month. He was 82 years old. Raup was a paleontologist at the University of Chicago, where he studied the big picture of the history of life, concentrating on mass extinctions. Here's an excerpt from the University of Chicago website [David Raup, paleontologist who transformed his discipline, 1933-2015].

Raup’s former students and colleagues uniformly praised his unique creativity along with his astute capabilities as an academic adviser, senior colleague and paleontological statesman. They remember him for the sweeping scope of the questions he asked, his analytical and quantitative rigor, and his skepticism and humility.

“David Raup ushered in a renaissance in paleontology,” said Raup’s former student and colleague Charles Marshall, SM’86, PhD’89, director of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology and professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley. “Before Dave, much of the discipline was centered on describing what was. Dave taught the discipline to think about the processes that might have generated the past record.”

Raup introduced statistical concepts to paleontology that treated the fossil record as an outcome of yet-to-be-discovered processes. Raup was widely known for the new approaches he brought repeatedly to paleontology, such as extensive computation, modern evolutionary biology, theoretical ecology and mathematical modeling.

As Marshall put it, Raup created new intellectual space for paleontology. “That was, in my opinion, his greatest contribution. It is not that Dave just transformed the discipline, but his students, and their students, continue to fill and expand that space,” Marshall said.

Another former student and colleague, Michael Foote, expressed similar sentiments.

“By any conception of what it means to be influential, Dave was one of the most influential paleontologists active during the second half of the 20th century,” said Foote, SM’88, PhD’89, a professor in geophysical sciences at UChicago. “In the areas he chose to touch, nobody, in my view, surpassed him.”

Raup hung out with the likes of John Sepkoski, Steven Stanley, and Stephen Jay Gould and they shared many of the same views on evolution. He was very good at describing those views in books for the general public and that's why I rate him as one of the best scientists who are also science writers [Good Science Writers: David Raup]. His book, Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (1991), is one of my top five books on evolution [Top Five Books on Evolution]. Here's a quotation from the introduction to that book ...

I have taken the title of this book from a research article I published in Spain some years ago. I was concerned then with the failure of trilobites in the Paleozoic era. Starting about 570 million years ago, these complex, crab-like organisms dominated life on ocean bottoms—at least they dominated the fossil assemblages of that age. But through the 325 million years of the Paleozoic era, trilobites dwindled in numbers and variety, finally disappearing completely in the mass extinction that ended the era, about 245 million years ago.

My question in Spain is the one I still ask: Why? Did the trilobites do something wrong? Were they fundamentally inferior organisms? Were they stupid? Or did they just have the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? The first alternative, bad genes, could be manifested by things like susceptibility to disease, lack of good sensory perception, or poor reproductive capacity. The second, bad luck, could be a freak catastrophe that eliminated all life in areas where tilobites happened to be living. The question is basically one of nature versus nurture. Is proneness to extinction an inherent property of a species—a weakness—or does it depend on vagaries of chance in a risk-ridden world?

Of course, the problem is more complex than I have presented it, just as the nature-nurture question in human behavior is complex. But in both situations, nature (Genetics) and nurture (environment) operate to some degree, and the challenge is to find out which process dominates and whether the imbalance varies in time and space. (pp. 5-6)

If you don't already own a copy of that book, you should buy one right now and read it. They may not be easy to get in the future and your life will be poorer if you don't learn about the difference between bad genes and bad luck.

Raup is famous for the Field of Bullets analogy to explain why extinction is as much bad luck as bad genes. He made a strong case for his belief that chance plays an important role in the history of life. He was not alone in making this claim but it doesn't seem to be popular these days for reasons that confound me. It's part of what I call Evolution by Accident. It means that if you replay the tape of life, things will come out very differently and there's no guarantee that sentient beings like ourselves will evolve [see Café Scientifique: Replaying the tape of life]. You don't have to agree with Raup, Gould, and other experts but if you want to participate in discussions of evolution you have to be familiar with this important concept.

---

More calls to extend the defunct Modern Synthesis

Once again, a group of scientists want to extend and revise the Modern Synthesis version of evolutionary theory in order to bring their pet projects into the mainstream. Once again, these scientists seem to have missed the real revolution that took place 45 years ago so they are attacking a strawman. And, once again, they seem to think that the core principles of evolutionary theory can be defined by how complex animals evolve, ignoring bacteria and single-cell eukaryotes that have been at the heart of the history of life for 3.5 billion years.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
 &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspCarl SaganThe paper by Laland et al. (2015) was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society (UK) Series B just this month (August, 2015). The usual suspects are included in the author list including three of the Altenberg 16: Eva Jablonka, Gerd B. Müller, and John Odling-Smee. This is the same group that defended the "yes" side when Nature posed the question, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?" back in October, 2014 [see Rethinking evolutionary theory ].