What'sNEW
The evolution of acquired characteristics, a/k/a Lamarckism, is a respectable, viable theory, according to Australian immunologist Ted Steele and associates. In a new article with >100 references, they review the subject in depth, and pursue it with surprising insights. Having spent decades studying it, Steele hopes research and testing will expand.
To me, "Epigenetic–Genetic Coupling and the Transition from 'Soft' to 'Hard' Lamarckian Inheritance" (illustrated) was the most unfamiliar aspect of the review. But even that cannot account for the inventiveness of longterm macroevolution — the examples given showed only adaptive microevolution. Some examples, like instinctive behavior, are especially intriguing. In an interview, Steele admits that straightforward Darwinian selection is adequate for eliminating the unfit, but says it cannot explain the rapidity of evolution. I agree, to say the least.
 Epigenetic-Genetic Coupling and Understanding the Molecular and Cellular Basis of Lamarckian Inheritance, by Robyn A. Lindley, Reginald M. Gorczynski and Edward J. Steele, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 20 Feb 2026; and discussion:
 Was Lamarck right about evolution? Robyn Chuter with Ted Steele, 85-min interview, 24 Jul 2026.
 12 May 1999: our review of Lamarck's Signature, by Steele et al., with linked discussion.
Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm has history
Scientists have long dreamed of discovering the alchemy by which chemicals can be turned into life. ...A team [has] taken a major step toward that vision.
These are opening words in a New York Times article describing a very impressive research project at The University of Minnesota. A team there attempted to create a minimal synthetic cell by piecing together some basic, molecular parts and a few borrowed parts, like replication and transcription enzymes. They claim only partial success, but it's still noteworthy. With a genome of only 90kb, the cell can divide, take up nutrients and persist for five generations. Wth no ribosome, it cannot synthesize proteins. The project was extremely complex, and the lengthy writeup is informative. Of course they mention possible commercial or medical applications, and safety issues. I haven't digested it all. The research is supported by a newly established non-profit initiative.
One of the most ambitious and fascinating goals of bioengineering is to build a biochemical system that could cross the threshold from chemistry to life, they write. I can imagine that as technology advances, future synthetic biologists might manufacture a ribosome and write all the necessary genes and eventually be able to make a cell chemically and genetically identical to a bacterial cell. If so, the manmade cell might get loose, swap genes with a free-living population of bacteria, and disappear into the crowd. That's life!
The origin-of-life research industry will find encouragement in this project. That is evident in the first sentence of the NYT story, and is suggested by the phrase, the threshold from chemistry to life. Yet this team doesn't mention that subject. They never suggest that any of the countless steps necessary to assemble a biological cell – or to write a bacterial genome – could happen by itself. The sheer complexity of the project reinforces my suspicion that the origin-of-life is impossible. This research has other objectives.
This Cell Feeds, Grows and Reproduces. And It's Manmade. by Carl Zimmer and Marco Hernandez, The New York Times, online 01 Jul 2026; re:
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable of Growth and Replication, by Nathaniel J. Gaut et al, (190 pages) [biotic.org: abstract with links | bioRxiv], 02 Jul 2026.
The RNA World and Other Origin-of-Life Theories has background and updates.
What Is Life? has related discussion.
13 Feb 2004: Nonliving to living? has related discussion.
Dear Martina -- Many thanks for this book; I probably wouldn't have known of it otherwise. Of course, it resonates with me because Kropotkin argues that Darwinism doesn't explain a lot about evolution. He specifically notices the cooperation that animals, from insects to humans, naturally exhibit. His catalog of examples is almost overwhelming. (He extends his argument to include human cultural progress, with relevance to pre-Soviet Russia.)
Today, 125 years later, we know about genes and DNA; this knowledge helps us to understand much about inheritance, genetic defects, microevolution and the like. It does not explain the genetic programming that major evolutionary changes require. However, if new genes aren't really new, surprises like un-selfish evolution are much more logical. As you know, the implications for cosmic life are profound. Thanks, Martina, for knowing about Kropotkin. He was a skeptic and non-conformist who understood life intuitively, 125 years ago. He was my kind of guy.
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, by Peter Kropotkin, Introduction and Notes by David Priestland, Penguin Classics, 2022. First published, 1902.
 Thanks, Martina Car and Anthony Audi.
"Horizontal gene transfer observed in human cells," by Amy McDermott, PNAS, with video, 19 Jun 2026.
Thanks, Google Alerts.
![]()
|
