Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
Case Western Reserve Theorist Develops Incomparable Model that Unifies Physics, Chemistry, and Biology

CLEVELAND – Jan. 26, 2012 – The earth is alive, asserts a revolutionary scientific theory of life emerging from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The trans-disciplinary theory demonstrates that purportedly inanimate, non-living objects—for example, planets, water, proteins, and DNA—are animate, that is, alive. With its broad explanatory power, applicable to all areas of science and medicine, this novel paradigm aims to catalyze a veritable renaissance.

Erik Andrulis, PhD, assistant professor of molecular biology and microbiology, advanced his controversial framework in his manuscript “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life,” published in the peer-reviewed journal, Life. His theory explains not only the evolutionary emergence of life on earth and in the universe but also the structure and function of existing cells and biospheres.

In addition to resolving long-standing paradoxes and puzzles in chemistry and biology, Dr. Andrulis’ theory unifies quantum and celestial mechanics. His unorthodox solution to this quintessential problem in physics differs from mainstream approaches, like string theory, as it is simple, non-mathematical, and experimentally and experientially verifiable. As such, the new portrait of quantum gravity is radical.

The basic idea of Dr. Andrulis’ framework is that all physical reality can be modeled by a single geometric entity with life-like characteristics: the gyre. The so-called “gyromodel” depicts objects—particles, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and cells—as quantized packets of energy and matter that cycle between excited and ground states around a singularity, the gyromodel’s center. A singularity is itself modeled as a gyre, wholly compatible with the thermodynamic and fractal nature of life. An example of this nested, self-similar organization is the Russian Matryoshka doll.

By fitting the gyromodel to facts accumulated over scientific history, Dr. Andrulis confirms the proposed existence of eight laws of nature. One of these, the natural law of unity, decrees that the living cell and any part of the visible universe are irreducible. This law formally establishes that there is one physical reality.

Another natural law dictates that the atomic and cosmic realms abide by identical organizational constraints. Simply put, atoms in the human body and solar systems in the universe move and behave in the exact same manner.

“Modern science lacks a unifying, interdisciplinary theory of life. In other words, current theories are unable to explain why life is the way it is and not any other way,” Dr. Andrulis says. “This general paradigm furnishes a fresh perspective on the character and meaning of life, offers solutions to protracted problems, and strives to end divisive debates.”

One debate swirls around the scientific merit of James Lovelock’s popular Gaia hypothesis. By showing that the earth is theoretically synonymous with life, Dr. Andrulis’ paradigm substantiates the Gaian premise that all organisms and their surroundings on earth are closely integrated to form a single self-regulating complex system.

Another legendary quarrel is that between biblical creationists and neo-Darwinian evolutionists. In demonstrating that the origin and evolution of life is a consequence of natural laws and physical forces, this theory synthesizes arguments and dispels assumptions from both sides of the creation-evolution debate.

To test his paradigm, Dr. Andrulis designed bidirectional flow diagrams that both depict and predict the dynamics of energy and matter. While such diagrams may be foreign to some scientists, they are standard reaction notation to chemists, biochemists, and biologists.

Dr. Andrulis has used his theory to successfully predict and identify a hidden signature of RNA biogenesis in his laboratory at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is now applying the gyromodel to unify and explain the evolution and development of human beings.

For more information, see “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life,” Life, Vol. 2:1-105 (2012).

Update:

• I have looked at the original paper, and it’s even crazier than the press release would indicate. So I can’t blame the author of the press release as much as the author of the actual paper — but why this was promoted by the institution is a mystery. Seriously, this paper feels like a Sokal hoax.
• Jonathan Badger pointed out in the comments to my post that I am cited in the paper. Here’s what it says: “C-value enigma. The C-value enigma states that less evolutionary developed cell types have greater genome size than more complex cell systems [725].” Of course, the C-value enigma says no such thing, and I would never used a term like “less evolutionary developed”. *Facepalm*
• John Timmer provides a nice summary of the issue at Ars Technica.

William Raillant-Clark’s Summary

In one sentence: I work with media professionals to ensure they have an opportunity to report on the world-class scientific research undertaken at the University of Montreal.

A typical example:
1. I take this: Nature “Acoelomorph flatworms are deuterostomes related to Xenoturbella” http://bit.ly/gNttFW
2. and turn it into this: “New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories” http://bit.ly/efsl3D
3. which becomes this: GlobalTV News “Canadian discovery questions living missing link” http://bit.ly/i2RN5H

3 leads logically from 2, if you assume that GlobalTV doesn’t understand evolution either. But 2 does not follow at all from 1. In fact, even writing that indicates a serious lack of basic knowledge about the topic.

One interesting thing about this, though, is that in this case the cycle of distortion and hype is much simpler than others have supposed.

HT: @edyong209

1. New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories

Evolution is not a steady march towards ever more sophisticated beings and therefore the search for the living “missing links” is pointless, according to findings published by a team of researchers led by Dr. Hervé Philippe of the Université de Montréal’s Department of Biochemistry.

And according to the most basic grasp of how evolution works.

2. Primates’ Unique Gene Regulation Mechanism: Little-Understood DNA Elements Serve Important Purpose

“Previously, no one knew what Alu elements and long noncoding RNAs did, whether they were junk or if they had any purpose. Now, we’ve shown that they actually have important roles in regulating protein production,” said Maquat, the J. Lowell Orbison Chair, professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics and director of the Center for RNA Biology at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

There’s been plenty of interest in possible roles for some Alu elements. There are more than 1,000,000 of them in the human genome. Seems like overkill, no?

Photo by Paul Hebert

It’s a cool species, an important addition to the cadre of species whose genomes have been sequenced, it has a notably large number of genes (>30,000, according to the current annotation — rice has >40,000, by the way), and the lead author of the study was a grad student with me in the same lab. But Daphnia pulex does NOT have a big genome. It’s about 200Mb, slightly larger than Drosophila melanogaster, and about 1/15 the size of the human genome.

This is a news website article about a scientific paper

In the standfirst I will make a fairly obvious pun about the subject matter before posing an inane question I have no intention of really answering: is this an important scientific finding?

In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of “scare quotes” to ensure that it’s clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.

In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research “challenges”.

If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.

This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like “the scientists say” to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist.

In this paragraph I will state in which journal the research will be published. I won’t provide a link because either a) the concept of adding links to web pages is alien to the editors, b) I can’t be bothered, or c) the journal inexplicably set the embargo on the press release to expire before the paper was actually published.

“Basically, this is a brief soundbite,” the scientist will say, from a department and university that I will give brief credit to. “The existing science is a bit dodgy, whereas my conclusion seems bang on,” she or he will continue.

I will then briefly state how many years the scientist spent leading the study, to reinforce the fact that this is a serious study and worthy of being published by the BBC the website.

This is a sub-heading that gives the impression I am about to add useful context.

Here I will state that whatever was being researched was first discovered in some year, presenting a vague timeline in a token gesture toward establishing context for the reader.

To pad out this section I will include a variety of inane facts about the subject of the research that I gathered by Googling the topic and reading the Wikipedia article that appeared as the first link.

I will preface them with “it is believed” or “scientists think” to avoid giving the impression of passing any sort of personal judgement on even the most inane facts.

This fragment will be put on its own line for no obvious reason.

In this paragraph I will reference or quote some minor celebrity, historical figure, eccentric, or a group of sufferers; because my editors are ideologically committed to the idea that all news stories need a “human interest”, and I’m not convinced that the scientists are interesting enough.

At this point I will include a picture, because our search engine optimisation experts have determined that humans are incapable of reading more than 400 words without one.

This picture has been optimised by SEO experts to appeal to our key target demographics

This subheading hints at controversy with a curt phrase and a question mark?

This paragraph will explain that while some scientists believe one thing to be true, other people believe another, different thing to be true.

In this paragraph I will provide balance with a quote from another scientist in the field. Since I picked their name at random from a Google search, and since the research probably hasn’t even been published yet for them to see it, their response to my e-mail will be bland and non-committal.

“The research is useful”, they will say, “and gives us new information. However, we need more research before we can say if the conclusions are correct, so I would advise caution for now.”

If the subject is politically sensitive this paragraph will contain quotes from some fringe special interest group of people who, though having no apparent understanding of the subject, help to give the impression that genuine public “controversy” exists.

This paragraph will provide more comments from the author restating their beliefs about the research by basically repeating the same stuff they said in the earlier quotes but with slightly different words. They won’t address any of the criticisms above because I only had time to send out one round of e-mails.

This paragraph contained useful information or context, but was removed by the sub-editor to keep the article within an arbitrary word limit in case the internet runs out of space.

The final paragraph will state that some part of the result is still ambiguous, and that research will continue.

Related Links:

The Journal (not the actual paper, we don’t link to papers).

The University Home Page (finding the researcher’s page would be too much effort).

Unrelated story from 2007 matched by keyword analysis.

Special interest group linked to for balance.

You can’t go for a month without seeing a claim that some new discovery has rewritten evolutionary history. If headlines are to be believed, phylogeny – the business of drawing family trees between different species – is an etch-a-sketch science. No sooner are family trees drawn before they’re rearranged. It’s easy to rile against these seemingly sensationalist claims, but James Tarver from the University of Bristol has found that the reality is more complex.

Check out the full post.

I appreciate comments and ideas from everyone, but I am especially interested in hearing from science writers as they are the intended users.

1. Misconceptions about evolution.

Check. Here’s a headline from a press release by Rice University: “Sponge shines light on life’s origin”. This is off by about 3 billion years. The subtitle to the press release is also awful: “Genome connects the dots between Amphimedon, animal descendants”. Nope. Amphimedon queenslandica is a modern species and is not the ancestor of any non-sponge animals (and probably not of any sponge species either). The common ancestor of all animals may have been sponge-like, but it was not a modern sponge species.

2. Hype about medical significance.

Check. The original paper itself and various news stories play up the “sponges will teach us lots about how to cure cancer” angle. I’ll be glad when (if?) it becomes unnecessary to tie everything to human health for it to gain support. Sequencing the sponge genome has many merits on its own, but the realities of grant competitions dictate that one must often find a link to cancer or climate change to get funded.

Anyway, kudos to the researchers on an interesting contribution to the animal genome dataset!

UPDATE: Along with Jonathan Eisen, I am glad to endorse the press release by UCSB, which shows how important evolutionary concepts can be weaved effectively into a news report. I *almost* was put off by the use of the term “basal”, which is terribly misleading and some implication that this *species* has been around for 650 million years (it definitely has not), but the story author and the researchers interviewed totally redeem themselves with this: “‘You had some ancestral animal that is long-since extinct, and its descendants became these modern-day sponges that we have, and there were other descendants that became the rest of the animal kingdom –– from jellyfish to baboons,’ said Kosik. ‘We speak of the sponge as being this earliest branching phylum, or group of animals.’ ” I’m not sure who the author of the press release was, but he/she did a very nice job here.