Tion works. In that sense, it is a new theory. I
Tion works. In that sense, it is a new theory. I would like to thank Professor Goldenfeld for his very insightful comments and suggestions for improvement, which I have taken to heart and which I believe have improved the paper substantially.Reviewer’s report II: J gen Brosius, University of M sterHowever, in my opinion, this attempt falls short for a number of reasons outlined below. Foremost, I would make a distinction between the introduced term “writing” and a possible alternative, namely “scribbling”. Most, if not all aspects the author has covered seem more like “scribbling” rather than “writing” (see below) and despite all the efforts to present presumed examples, I am not convinced of a “writing” process in genomes. It should be noted that this skepticism comes from someone who does not outright reject `genome writing’. In contrast, I was among the early voices who considered our recently acquired capabilities to actively write into genomes, including our own in a directed manner as a very significant evolutionary transition: “…Homo sapiens, by being able to influence its own genes stands at the brink of a significant transition. We will soon have the ability to use gene therapy to correct genetic disease, clone individuals from somatic cells, introduce desired traits or remove undesirable ones, design genes from scratch and introduce additional chromosomes. Lamarckism is raising its head, after all, albeit without violating the Darwinian principles” (reviewer’s ref. 1). And: “Presently, we are about to witness yet another major evolutionary transition. Through our advances in biology we are now able to transmit knowledge and experimental experience into the germ line of virtually all living species including our own. We will be able to correct the genetic causes of hereditary diseases and implant desired traits into future generations. In 3.5 billion years of evolution, life was perhaps never so close to some form of Lamarckian mechanism as now (…); whether this is a desirable development is, of course, yet another question” (reviewer’s ref. 2). Prior to the 1970s/80s, all we did was wait for mutations to occur naturally and select for desired traits. There was however an intermediate period last century, when we scribbled by order GSK343 increasing random mutation rates aided by chemicals, UV radiation, X-rays and radioactivity in conjunction with the power of selection in applications such as plant/animal breeding and modification of microorganisms. Author response: The reader who has started with the reviews before reading the paper should note that the quote above from Professor Brosius’s earlier work, while interesting in its own sake, is on a topic other than the one that is in focus in this paper. Professor Brosius is referring to the process of artificial induction of mutation, whereas the current paper proposes a new theory about how the mutations that occur naturally drive evolution.This is an interesting and thought provoking read containing many “eye-openers” and emphasizing yet unsolved questions concerning the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction and the proposal of a new theory in harmony with sex. Author PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28388412 response: It is a great honor to be told by this pioneering thinker that the paper is thought provoking and has many “eye-openers”. I would like to thank Professor Brosius for his thoughtful and detailed review. In his comments outlined below, he will attempt to raise difficulties of various kinds with the th.
