The questions should be refined. As soon as pollution exerts a selective pressure there will be natural selection and thus evolution. This is trivial and many classical examples are known and can be found easily in the literature.

The question if polution "may lead to evolution of some species into more advanced ones?" is subjective as nature does not judge (other than by natural selection) only humans can do so. How would a more advanced species be defined anyways?

Also, there is a plenty of papers on adaptation of metabolism in some Bacteria to be able to feed on toxic waste, e.g., Carbon tetrachloride. However, can it be considered evolution / speciation, when there are no biological species in Bacteria? And, can we call these "more advanced"??

A textbook example of this is the peppered moth story. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

pollution triggers evolution is very true.....like industrial revolution manifest the peppered moth evolution where only black one are able to survive and white one died because of easy prey and their lost camouflage and mimicry....

Also pollution cause the environmental changes which assist the Darwin survival of fittest........cause DNA to mutate and help in evolution of the native species.

Like in Africa people have a dark complexion as they have more integrity of melanin pigments which helps them to combat the direct sun light which falls directly to the equator region.

Hi, I think that a great importance to define how pollution could drive selective pressure and consequently could begin the speciation process, should give to the kind of pollution is occurring. Usually acute pollution produce high mortality and is concentrated in a too short timescale to produce significant selection into a population. On the contrary, chronic pollution, if confined in a limited area, may reduce the number of genetic variants in a population and select only those could give a high fitness in individuals. One other aspect to take into consideration could be the generation time of the species considered, due to high generation turnover could fix faster the genetic variants than species have low turnover. However, the adaptation to a polluted environment will not give a new more advanced species, but simply a species who has adapted to a change in its environment.

In the great African lakes, there's solid evidence that pollution works the other way with cichlid fishes: with increasing eutrophication, sexual selection is curbed, and as sexual selection has been a main driver of speciation in these systems, the impact on biodiversity (evolution) is likely to be negative (breaking down reproductive barriers related to sexual signaling). Works on these topics include contributions by Ole Seehausen, Jacques van Alphen and many more - easily found on ISI Web of Knowledge and other scientific sources.

The questions should be refined. As soon as pollution exerts a selective pressure there will be natural selection and thus evolution. This is trivial and many classical examples are known and can be found easily in the literature.

The question if polution "may lead to evolution of some species into more advanced ones?" is subjective as nature does not judge (other than by natural selection) only humans can do so. How would a more advanced species be defined anyways?

I agree with Markus, the question should be refined. Plus, I don't think the phrase 'more advanced ones' has any meaning for the reasons Markus stated. This is an 18th Century concept of progress in evolution and really needs to be dropped.

There are an enormous number of examples of adaptations to pollution. Industrial melanism is a classic and the evolution of heavy metal tolerance in plants growing near mines is another. The current research fad seems to be how organisms deal with light and sound pollution. As you can see, you need to be very clear what you mean by pollution. You also need to be clear what aspect of evolution really concerns you. Examples of local adaptation are abundant and any such case has the potential to lead to speciation.

The atmosphere of the earth during the early evolution of life was very different from what it is today. When the level of free iron decreased oxygen producing organisms effectively poisoned the planet and caused many species to become extinct. However, the increase of oxygen in the atmosphere created the possibility for organisms to evolve that could utilize this new energy resource and this created an evolutionary leap.

A very impressive answer Christopher. Thank you so much.

You are welcome, Naveen.

@Matej, the peppered moth example was disproved in a paper in the Journal of Evolutionary Science. However, there is a new current example emerging right now: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-03/national/35438638_1_shark-species-blacktips-female-sharks

@Naveen, yes, I do think that it would. Evolution happens largely as the result of a catalyst, a physical need to change to the environment. If the environment is stable (more or less), then there is less incentive for evolution to occur as natural selection wouldn't produce any different results because what's already there is working just fine. But, whenever you introduce a catalyst that threatens the balance of life, then evolution would be spurred into action by necessity. The number and types of catalysts can be many, but certainly I think that air pollution cannot be discounted.

Dr Clayborn,

I find myself in agreement with you. However, where you would use the word 'catalyst', I would prefer the word 'reagent'. This follows from my own research which attempts to show that the evolution of life is the evolution of catalysis. It is a pedantic point.

@Dr. Davia,

Thanks. I am actually not a doctor yet. I still have to defend my dissertation.

I think that your research is probably pretty close to the mark based on my own observations. I will certainly read through the paper that you've shared. I have no doubt that it will be an enjoyable read.

Nearly Dr Clayborn - good luck,

Actually, I am not a Dr either.

I am very pleased that you like my work. You will find all my papers available here at RG.

Chris

Dear Christopher and Jonathan

i would also not use the term catalyst in this context and in my opinion it is not merely a pedantic point. Evolution is the result of selection pressure (you may also call it selective force). Fitness (reproduction rate) can be seen as an equivalent of the free energy which is not affected through the action of a catalyst. In evolution, the equivalent of the catalyst would be a mutagen increasing the natural mutation rate and thereby promoting the adaptation. From that perspective, human intervention (e.g. breeding) could also be seen as a catalyst because desirable mutations become stably fixed quicker than by natural selection. And of course humans are directly and indirectly changing the selection pressure (driving force).The term reagent seems also not appropriate to me. While you could say that mutations are the results of reagents, evolution is a "process" caused by mutations and selection (and some random events).

@Christopher: When you say "evolution of life" do you refer to the very "early days", i.e. before cellular life? If so, then i would largely (but not entirely) agree with you. However, the more evolved the organisms become other aspect become at least equally important and "evolution of life is the evolution of catalysis" would be oversimplistic.

Markus,

I am primarily interested in the brain and consciousness. As a consequence of the Fractal Catalytic Model, I treat the brain as a macroscopic catalyst.

I believe that considering the possibility that living organisms are organised as fractal processes of catalysis offers us a way to radically simplify our understanding of living processes and their evolution.

Consequently, if there were a 'weak' form and a 'strong' form of the claim that: 'The evolution of life is the evolution of catalysis', I would be definitely on the side of the 'strong'.

Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904

Hi Marcus, your term of reagent makes sense to me. I was simply using the term catalyst in a layman's sense to convey an idea, not in a technical sense. Admittedly my primary area of focus is psychology, but I have long been fascinated by evolutionary research and followed these topics for quite some time.

Dear Christopher,

in which sense would the view that "living organisms are organised as fractal processes of catalysis" radically simplify our understanding of living processes and their evolution? What processes specifically would be easier to understand?

And with respect to evolution, in how far would this view take the stochastic nature into account?

Markus,

All of my papers are available here at RG and there is also a wiki entry entitled 'Fractal Catalytic Model".

The principle question that I set myself the task of answering concerned the extraordinary robustness of living systems.

Imagine a catalyst in an environment that only contain the reagents (substrate) for that particular catalyst. So long as we keep removing the products and add new reagents as they are used up, then the catalyst and the process of catalysis will continue as a robust process indefinitely.

Now, imagine the cell as being a non-specific catalyst that only allows reagents to enter the cell for which it acts as a catalyst. Again, theoretically, the cell will also exhibit extraordinary robustness (there are additional factors here that you will have to read the paper to appreciate ( not difficult factors)

Now, if it could be shown that for living systems Function = Metabolism and Metabolism = Catalysis for all living systems at every level of scale then we have vastly simplified the problem of understanding the robustness of living systems - simples.

Additionally, if it is then possible to derive a model of cognition and brain function generally from catalysis, then you have a very powerful theory indeed.

It might be useful to know that as a consequence of a review paper that featured the work of three research groups doing Kinetic Isotope Experirements, it is now generally agreed among physical chemists with an interest in enzyme catalysis that the principle mechanism for enzyme catalysis is vibrationally assisted Quantum Tunneling. The vibrational mode turns out to be a soliton.

The theory has been strengthened by much empirical data that shows that these types of wave are implicated at the level of the enzyme, the cell and up[ o and including the brain. Even the lcomotion of different species have been shown to exhibit solitonic characteristics.

I think that you will find the references in the attached file, otherwise, the Springer Verlag chapter will definiately have them.

Stochastic nature? If you are asking 'How does the central dogma that 'it is blind chance that drives the evolutionary process' fit into the Fractal Catalytic Model'? my answer is - It doesn't! Having said that, I admit that I do not have a strong reply. However, perhaps the emphasis should be changed from 'stochastic' to 'stochastic resonance'.

Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904

Thank you all for a dense discussion. Please feel free to add new points if any to the discussion.

Check also the famous case of the peppered moth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

dear Naveen

i remember to you the case of white and grey butterflies at the Darwin's time

Most of the chemical forms which basically alters the system or trigger some metabolism in organisms even in human beings too based on its chemical structure and functional body. what we are trying to make efficient varieties of various forms to sustain ourselves; the various form of organisms too trying to adopt to particular type of stress in a course of time, it leads to emerging of new variety of species with most suitability to any forms

You may read my review article in this case and one more article is under review in this case, when published I will upload.

Of course it can! Example of peppered moths. Though not a species change .... but an example how it can contribute a to mega change with time.

PS Pollution will not promote "generation" of diversity but selection against already prevailing varieties.

We have examples of mass extinctions that led to our evolution, from meteor impacts to volcanic eruptions, both filled the atmosphere with "pollution" that caused massive extinction events for some species and the appearance/evolution of new species.

Yes the peppered moth is the classic example given in Biology classes while teaching darwinism.

Please see many papers on Industrial melanism by E.B. Ford

Dear CHristopher,

thanks for the extensive reply.

Regarding the robustness of living systems, i would argue that this is a matter of complex feedback regulation.

I dont see where solitons have any relevance on the cellular level, let alone the brain. Or in other words, in how far "the principle mechanism for enzyme catalysis is vibrationally assisted Quantum Tunneling" helps us in understanding the human mind, or cognition.

You say that, "Additionally, if it is then possible to derive a model of cognition and brain function generally from catalysis, then you have a very powerful theory indeed." but where exactly is that power? Which problems does it solve? Where does it provide a better understanding than other theories?

Along the same line, in how far would Function = Metabolism = Catalysis (which i dont agree with in this form btw) vastly simplify the problem of understanding the robustness of living systems?

@Naveen: Yes pollution can cause speciation but as Markus has said earlier it would depend on the kind of selective pressure. If the selective pressure is strong enough then the speciation would occur in a manner by which most of the individuals of a species would perish or move to other niches for survival but some individuals would be able to survive due to changes in the genes due to the pollution or due to activation of some genes again due to pollution which would make them fitter in the said condition.

There can be another scenario where the selective pressure may not be strong enough but due to its prolonged presence some individuals of a species may adapt to make better use of the prevailing pollutant for their benefit and thus give rise to a new species in a long run.

Yes. Each species that thrives in an ecosystem has optimal environmental conditions that is necessary for its survival. It may be in terms of pH, temperature, nutrients and other abiotic factors. Pollution can changes in the environmental conditions that allow for several species to survive i an ecosystem. They tend to disrupt the balance of environmental factors in an ecosystem.If these factors are altered in a way due to pollution, the organism would be forced to adapt to the changing environmental condition. In layman`s terms, we can say it is "forced to evolve" in a way.

In addition, pollution can also trigger evolution by favoring other species. If we see it in terms of nutrient cycles, chemical pollution can cause an abrupt change in the levels of nutrients in the ecosystem. These changes whether an increase or decrease in the amount of nutrients can tend to favor the growth of certain species. Thus, there would be dominance of a single species and other species would have to evolve. In addition, if that dominant species is a natural predator of another species, the prey would have to evolve in order to survive.

Indeed it can. Check out works by Ole Seehausen, Jacques van Alphen and colleagues on African cichlids re eutrophication and sexual selection. And works by Järvenpää and Candolin on eutrophication effects in gobies and sticklebacks.

If evolution implies increased complexity, then the answer is No. If evolution implies fitness to an inferior target, then the answer is Yes. As advanced by devolution hypotheses. Because genetic entropy may "discount" evolution's selection for the fittest (measured to a prior yardstick) due to pollution:

Following from which info-centric views of genetics and evolution may be used to explain:

• Pollution causing mutation in frog -devolution
• The link between pesticides and Alzheimer's-devolution

Just because somethings thrive tells us little of its fitness-.Especially if that fitness is a moving target. If we eat "heavy metal tuna" and become cognitively- impaired how fit are we compared to our ancestors, even though our average life expectancy is higher? Where are we on the global fitness landscape?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110802-frogs-deformed-parasites-animals-environment-mutants/

http://center4research.org/medical-care-for-adults/disabilities/pesticides-and-alzheimers-disease/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12687-frog-deformities-linked-to-farm-pollution.html#.VTHmxsuwrqA

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/how_would_we_kn066521.html

https://sites.google.com/site/devolutionaryhypothesis/scientists-who-affirm-devolution

Article Heavy Metals Content of Canned Tuna Fish