<div dir="ltr"><div><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div>Dear Eric and 'All', it appears to be a 'fool's task' to debate the merits of the role of the force of gravity in the evolution of vertebrates, given that I have not only provided empiric evidence for it, as have others, but have described the process in an earlier email.....John</div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 3:38 AM Dr. Eric Werner <<a href="mailto:evwerner@gmail.com">evwerner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Dear Pedro, John and FIS Collegues,<div><br></div><div>Fascinating points you make, Pedro. </div><div><br></div><div>The paper by <span style="color:rgb(20,20,19);font-family:"DM Sans",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:20px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Zhizhou Zhang </span><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadMolBioGen8001__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UusxFDTBk3ZUgkvJ1A6efTRkbVH1ghY7Hqm_3tckntBOt0NwXJpwRR3yOZ0vQsEj9vRbkhxP9L0TnovknBDPEK5Ao7cg$" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadMolBioGen8001</a> is provocative indeed. The gene centric focus of the paper is foundational for its provocative hypothesis that we humans are mentally closer to fish than chimps. While it may be genetically valid, it ignores the other 95% of the genome that is not genetic, and instead noncoding the so called dark matter of the genome. </div><div><br></div><div>The noncoding genome is what I have argued contains the CONTROLNOME of the genome that actually controls and development of the morphology, the form and functional architecture of the multicellular species in question. The complexity of form of the organism cannot be in the genes because the genes are shared by organisms that have overt highly complex different forms. (And gravity cannot account for the difference, John, because it is obviously shared by all life forms on our dear planet.) </div><div><br></div><div>The difference between the gene-coding genome and the controlnome, has parallels between the difference between semantics and pragmatics, between sentences that are true or false and those that are neither, like questions and commands. This parallel relationship between genome semantics and pragmatics and human language as well as other animal communications system semantics and pragmatics is no artificial construct but results from fundamental principles of how information works in living systems. </div><div><br></div><div>The attempts to reduce the complexity of multicellular development to point mutations in shared genes, or to gravity, or to cell signaling or other physiological feedback mechanisms all fail the Complexity Conservation Principle (see my Ants paper and How central is the genome paper). And then there is meta-sex complexity of meta-genome interactions (see my gynandromorphs paper).</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Eric</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPad</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 2, 2025, at 8:19 PM, Pedro C. Marijuán <<a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com" target="_blank">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<p>Dear John and FIS Colleagues,</p>
<p>Thanks for the well crafted, dense bio paragraphs. Although I
agree with most of the comments --not with all-- the main problem
I see that it is a really too condensed a summary. It reminds me
the great little book by French biologist Max Pavans de Ceccatty
"La vie: de la cellule à l'homme" (1962), put in just half page.
Given the brevity needed, I will just point to three extra themes
that for my taste are relevant: signaling and the life cycle, role
of the "virome" in eukaryotic complexity and multicellular life,
and the tangled threads of Anthropogenesis. </p>
<p>The former one, signaling and the life cycle, represents "the
path not taken" about the deep meaning of cellular signaling. From
the beginning it was conceived within the input-processing-output
paradigm of techno-computer and artificial systems. It did not
help the concept of signaling as "structural coupling" with the
milieu, from the thought of Maturana and Varela. In any event, the
information flow (signaling) necessary interrelationship with the
energy flow (metabolism) has not been properly integrated with the
great sink and source for both flows: the life cycle. Perhaps
making the cycle "modular", and susceptible to be maintained
conveniently "frozen" along its different phases, represented the
basis of cell differentiation & specialized tissues via
signaling codes... Further, any complex form of life has had to
maintain the same openness to the info flows of its niche in order
to propel the advancement of its own life cycle. And let me stop
here.</p>
<p>About the virome, following Villareal, Witzany, and many others,
the motto "Ex virus omnia" means that
a new, forgotten realm of life has to be added to Margulis’
endosymbiotic
theory (Margulis, 1981, 1970), so incorporating viruses’ essential
evolutionary role within the present
discussions around the renewal or replacement of evolutionary
theory (Noble, 2016). In fact, one
the most important genome modifications of eukaryotes has come
from the
systematic activity of components of viral provenance: mobile
elements,
transposons, retrotransposons, repetitive elements and so on.
Seemingly (Shapiro) our species has counted with around 4 million
mobile insertion events. As a result, ancestral viral proteins can
be found in signaling pathways of all kind, and all across the
mammalian and human proteomes. </p>
<p>And finally about Anthropogenesis, let me copy from a recent
study: "By employing 471 whole-genome sequence samples, including
archaic humans (Neanderthals, Denisovans and more), modern humans,
other vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, rodents,
mammals) plus four coelacanth and three lungfish samples, together
with 18 human cognition-related genes and their total of 223 SNVs
(Single-Nucleotide Variations),comparative analyses revealed that
the CGPPs (cognition gene polymorphism patterns) of both
coelacanths and lungfish are evolutionarily closer to those of
archaic humans than those of most other animal groups. The CGPP
appears to occupy an evolutionary inflection point, bridging
diverse animal lineages to archaic hominoids. Our observational
results suggest a hypothesis (to be validated in the future) that
<b>the genetic architecture underlying human cognition seems to
have been established during the evolutionary stage of fish,
predating the emergence of tetrapods</b>..." Amazing!! (From
Zhizhou Zhang et al., 2025,
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadMolBioGen8001__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UusxFDTBk3ZUgkvJ1A6efTRkbVH1ghY7Hqm_3tckntBOt0NwXJpwRR3yOZ0vQsEj9vRbkhxP9L0TnovknBDPEK5Ao7cg$" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadMolBioGen8001</a>). By the way, there is
a special issue on Anthropogenesis to appear soon in BioSystems,
where brain evolution, sexual selection, social niche, emergence
of language, cognition, etc. are updated and discussed (editors
Marijuan, Igamberdiev, Iurato, 2025)--great job by Andrei. We will
send soon the link.</p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p>--Pedro</p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div>
<div>El 23/11/2025 a las 18:20, JOHN TORDAY escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font size="4">Dear Eric, I am afraid you have
misunderstood my allusion to the role gravity
plays in evolution, in my opinion, based totally
on experimental evidence. It becomes most apparent
and relevant in the vertebrate transition from
water to land, when fish adapted to land (a known
fact). During that transition there were three
hormone receptors that duplicated- the Parathyroid
Hormone Receptor (PTHrP), the Glucocorticoid
Receptor (GR) and the beta-adrenergic receptor
(beta-AR). Which came first is the question I have
pondered for many years, only recently coming to
the realization that it must have been the PTHrP
receptor that duplicated first, given that it
determines bone 'stiffness', and the skeleton
would have been under stress due to the effective
force of gravity on land versus in water. Those
members of the species that were able to
'up-regulate' their PTHrP receptor most readily
for bone would have done so successively in the
swim bladder to drive its evolution in becoming
the lung, as evidenced by the fact that in the
absence of PTHrP the lung does not alveolarize
(Rubin et al, 2004), followed by the role of PTHrP
in forming kidney glomeruli from the fish kidney
glomus, and the augmentation of the stress signal
from pituitary to adrenal cortex to produce
adrenaline and cortisol. We know that there must
have been such a scenario since fish attempted to
breech land on at least 5 separate occasions (see
Clack, J.A., Gaining Ground, 2012). The relevance
of these physiologic adaptations can be seen in
astronauts who experience osteoporosis due to
PTHrP deficiency (see Torday, 2003 for evidence of
such) as well as kidney complications due to
down-regulation of PTHrP control of salt and water
balance. So in the aggregate, in reply to
your comment that "gravity would not directly
control the growth of a bilateral gynandromorph
that is half female and half male down the
middle", I would beg to differ based on</font><span style="font-size:large"> the hormonal adaptations
for land life, which are fundamental to land
vertebrate physiologic adaptations for skeletal
integrity, breathing, salt and water balance, if
you get my point. And all of these physiologic
traits are essential for the bipedalism that freed
our forelimbs for tool-making, including speaking,
and locomotion, all of which are under the control
of the FoxP2 gene and are 'housed' within the Area
of Broca (</span><font size="4">see <span style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:system-ui,-apple-system,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Fira Sans","Droid Sans","Helvetica Neue",sans-serif">Torday
JS. A central theory of biology. Med Hypotheses.
2015 Jul;85(1):49-57)</span></font><span style="font-size:large">. It is this transition
from crawling on all fours to standing on two legs
due to the advent of endothermy that marks the
evolution of our over-seized central nervous
system....and as a consequence, at some point in
human evolution our heads became too large to fit
in the birth canal so we are born prematurely,
with only 25% of brain capacity, requiring decades
of nurturing by family and society in order to
effectively mature as a species, if ever (I note
my current President). </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:large"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:large">As for your glib
comment abou</span><font size="4">t "The issue is
more understanding the information that makes a
difference (Oh dear I have slipped into Spencer
Brown"......In this regard, I think you
misunderstand Spencer-Brown too in that what he
was telling us is that we are fractals of a
'holism' as the unmarked space.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">And as for your flippant comment
about "gravity does not make the difference
between a whale and a dog" I again beg your
pardon, but gravity is exactly what makes the
difference between a whale and a dog, referring
again to gravity's effects on the physiologic
traits of each on land (dog) and in water (whale)
given that seals are thought to have evolved back
to water from dogs......</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">But you may take exception to what
I am saying, so have at it. I am of the opinion
that the way I have traced evolution from cell to
our 'selves' accounts for the evolution of
consciousness from the former to the latter as I
have expressed in numerous peer-reviewed articles,
and 14 monographs.</font></div>
<div><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4">Best, John</font></div>
<div><span style="font-size:large"> </span></div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Nov 23, 2025
at 11:11 AM OARF <<a href="mailto:eric.werner@oarf.org" target="_blank">eric.werner@oarf.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Dear john,
<div>There is a difference between necessary
conditions that are just that and offer no
information that controls the growth of detailed
structure in multicellular organisms that
differentiates one from another and conditions
like gravity that apply to all such
developmental processes. Thus, for example,
gravity would not directly control the growth of
a bilateral gynandromorph that is half female
and half male down the middle. See: <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5439__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UusxFDTBk3ZUgkvJ1A6efTRkbVH1ghY7Hqm_3tckntBOt0NwXJpwRR3yOZ0vQsEj9vRbkhxP9L0TnovknBDPEDwcoYq4$" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5439</a> for
more details. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But I agree that gravity and oxygen
certainly have their effects on development. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The issue is more understanding the
information that makes a difference (Oh dear I
have slipped into Spencer Brown ;-) ).</div>
<div>and gravity does not make the difference
between a whale and a dog.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Eric</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPad</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Nov 23, 2025, at
3:05 PM, JOHN TORDAY <<a href="mailto:jtorday@ucla.edu" target="_blank">jtorday@ucla.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font size="4">To Eric, Gordana,
Howard, regarding the role of sex in
evolution, I would like to point out
that the role of gravity in evolution
also entails sex in the following way.
In the study of the effect of
microgravity on yeast, the simplest
eukaryote, they cannot 'bud' as form
of asexual reproduction in
microgravitational conditions (<span style="color:rgb(33,33,33);font-family:system-ui,-apple-system,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Fira Sans","Droid Sans","Helvetica Neue",sans-serif">Purevdorj-Gage
B, Sheehan KB, Hyman LE. Effects of
low-shear modeled microgravity on
cell function, gene expression, and
phenotype in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol.
2006 Jul;72(7):4569-75). I am of the
opinion that it is only in
addressing the evolutionary ontology
as it corresponds with the
epistemology that an adaptive trait
can be understood, as in the case of
sex as a means of adapting to an
ever-changing environment. In the
case of yeast, budding is a means of
epigenetic inheritance of
environmental factors relevant to
its adaptation, and the force of
gravity affects that process. These
authors also observed that the yeast
could not conduct a calcium flux
under microgravity, rendering them
unconscious 'zombies'. I share this
information with you in an attempt
to find a final common pathway for
the process of evolution, ultimately
referring to the elements in the
Cosmos as the latter's 'logic', as I
expressed it in an accompanying
email earlier today....Best, John</span></font></div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun,
Nov 23, 2025 at 8:13 AM OARF <<a href="mailto:eric.werner@oarf.org" target="_blank">eric.werner@oarf.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Hi Gordana,</span>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">I was
just responding to Howard’s more
general point beyond bacteria.
Eukaryotes have sex an inherently
social process. Sexuality is
fundamentally a cooperative process,
at many levels of organization. Even
social at the level of the genome:
See my theory of meta-genome
interactions between the sexes. It
is particularly clear in the case
physically mixed sex organisms (this
can be neurological as well). See
the theory applied to mixed sex
organisms or gynandropmorphs: </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5439__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XLF-Q-SqJ-AuvQ-dic9ptw82Ooe57dI4UX6ePa7CTWADakJMPTruAnfSd0yTCHhsfb-S3Rv04mCA4h3ClsatzQ4$" style="color:rgb(37,37,255)" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5439</a></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">So the
sexuality of being is inherently
social. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">-Eric</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ericwerner.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XLF-Q-SqJ-AuvQ-dic9ptw82Ooe57dI4UX6ePa7CTWADakJMPTruAnfSd0yTCHhsfb-S3Rv04mCA4h3CaUt82MM$" target="_blank">https://www.ericwerner.com/</a></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPad</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE
CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a
una lista de correo gestionada por la
Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información
sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una
lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja
desde la propia aplicación en el momento
en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Fis mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a></span><br><span><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a></span><br><span>----------</span><br><span>INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL</span><br><span></span><br><span>Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.</span><br><span>Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a></span><br><span>Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.</span><br><span><a href="http://listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a></span><br><span>----------</span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>