Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   big breakthrough in Evolutionary Biology
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 23 (3913)
02-09-2002 10:22 AM


Genetic evidence for macroevolution:
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm
FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION
Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered
the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.
In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper
scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in
regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.
The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolutionthe absence of a
genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.
The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution, says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 02-09-2002 12:30 PM nator has not replied
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 07-29-2002 7:06 PM nator has not replied
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 8:47 PM nator has replied
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 07-31-2002 12:28 AM nator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 23 (3916)
02-09-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-09-2002 10:22 AM


Nice Schraf...
I think sld beat you to it though starting the Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes thead....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-09-2002 10:22 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:51 PM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 23 (3919)
02-09-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by joz
02-09-2002 12:30 PM


"Nice Schraf...
I think sld beat you to it though starting the Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes thead...."
--I thought I was seeing deja vu.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 02-09-2002 12:30 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 07-29-2002 7:12 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 23 (14409)
07-29-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-09-2002 10:22 AM


A LAUNCCH FOR EXPECTATION THEORY IS A FREE LUCH-- Selection is understandable but to will a wedge, that is another question remarked opinonated or what?
One could have expected that no matter the Castle of Pascal's King that the first Darwininan revolution really owed less to Malthus rhan any biologcal materialism would title. William Provine (SEWALL WRIGHT AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY) insisted in more tha a unitary place
p293 "I think instead that Wright had excellent reason to believe what Robson and Richards were saying, both because they were following a strong tradition and because contemporary evidence supported their view(Provine 1983)."
p269 "When I first tied the hypothesis on Wright in out interviews, he indicated agreement but with none of the certainty he typically exhibited when he clearly recalled an event. I was convinced, and shared the hypothesis with audiences at several univeristies."
p303 "For example, Wright answered Mayr's 1959 foray immediately (Wright 167) and continued to answer it over the years up to and including 1984."
p43? "Mayr also replied to Ford saying that "the whole matter distresses me greatly" and that the reason he had returned the paper was "certainly not because the opinions expressed in it were unacceptable per se" (Mayr to Ford April 14, 1949)
p455 "Nothing in my own background has been so essential as the constant interaction with both Mayr and Wright and feeling the tension between their historical interpretations."
ONE OF WRIGHT's teachers is in my own background. At most, this is typological for me but rahter I would read Levin's bath water. The tension feel is really between my Mother (Chrisitan) and Grandmother (Agnostic?) as my grandfather passed in my second failed attempt at marriage unawares to me.
I know Willknows the difference between change and multiplication evolution but the Mayr duo with Will does not make finding out and I was removed from even being able to TALK with these audiences but bu web, what orthogenesis COULD mean very student accesible nor what it may in word actually mean in the sam connotation that Crick did with the vital force but by limiting best biology (in this way) to authorized anti-Micurianist theory-empirical colelciton protocols (Lewontin etc) what is need in "the biology is not physics" climate of academia is rarely achievable (Kaufmann et al) but is a different relation to math depts thanPhyics has enjoyed IS IS IS IS NOT. Pascal knew this. Huygens and Leibniz no matter the Chomsky do not seperate SPATIALLY the possible f2 difference to any Port Royalist yet information or game theory is not on target either but THAT is all secularists such as Provine had to work on working with. But Pascal's point graphed geometrically of geometry apparently even in the space age had not soaked even with small continuous effects into their collective Changeux brain that even topology was not definitionally available for any wrongly taught taxogeny in evolution classes. This is not essentail ism, Monod's chance, or typology but at what levels of organization variousl (o,1) concpets enter the bioloigcal modeling (Please recognize that the philosophy of this relation of thought to pratice is not merely a philosophy of pattern and process as some bioloigsts have it writ as) whether by pen and papaer ow with electrons, whatever the materiality no matter the naturalism.
Weismann then interpreted, only, is lined with Provine dynamics or rather phase transition even more narrowly which for me is the "diagonal" of the Matrix presentation of Pascal's triangle when not illustrated specifically in a Mathematica Front End. I could start with reproduction as a sink of genetic variation under distribution of hot spots but then saptially I may have missed something so I will remain as constricted as Nerodia is not Natrix being the assignment not of a baralipton but the tea honesTly. P413 "
Of course, this switch is exactly what Wright would execute as systematists became more and more adatptionist in their outlook." Provine only "killed" Kaufamn's motivation of blinking lights, no mine. Nor is it Gates' "ecosystem' lookin.. I do not base this on religous committment, though I am free to do so, but on our rather more modern (post-Cantor) understanding of infinity (hence reason I may not be exactly in an ICR lineup) that was not open to Pascal but perhaps spirtually ( I say nothing of the Catholic understandin of the same). This means that Mary has set up a social antithesis just as Wright accussed Fiher/Ford in the either/or logic. \Simon Levin (probably no Liebniz) would not give this kind of multiplication even the applied math day (which I felt Hilber's program was sufficient justification to not devolve me into specifically Kantian ornamentation for any allometry)(yet Cornell STILL threw me out), so why would one expectan even less mathematically inclined historian to offer the sudent a mentor will to split Pascal's hair between arithemetic, geometry and mechanics by not denying Newton's GOD (WILL PROVINE HAD OPENLY DONE THIS-- THIS IS WHY I ASKED TO ADMINISTRATION FOR SOME ONE ABLE TO OVERSEE THIS--- THEY CALLED WILL UP BUT THE j u d icial administrator was able to percieve the legitimacy in the complaint and I merely wanted the same passed on to the president (RHODES) who had writ a book for the kid on evolution only unknowing both on the phone and in writing my messages were sent for judment smaking of psychiatry and to the medical offices of the university (Rather than NYC)) nor Maxwell's electrotonic state. The secular pedagogy failed the student in this regard and creationists need more legal power for other new age reasons that interdigitate even the fish of digital number >5. Newton may have deined this point to Galileo but genetics changed the stakes. US law did not see this coming. I hope you all see me going at most. I t was neither as high nor as wanting as Bill Clinton said. Pascal's speaKS TO this station which without field lines can be likely read from Chinese documents as well.
Mayr's scholarship PREVENTS as best I can tell, the kind of interaction with math that the Cantor Infinity beyond Bolzano that I understand was communicated to the Pope before 1900 is not phenomenology strictly. Mathematicians questioned Mayr et al over the "parameters" in evolution thinking and he seems to have not been able to live this down. I have not been able to 'extract' any math from Mayr which is not strictly fied to actual ecological reasoning so it is possible any Croizat I do for what is actual criticism of Mayrs science may come down to tests of neophenogenesis and character geography gradients in herpetology that may be pointing to a different Wright diagram than the one I read on thinking of Croizat's Tucans and Hummingbirds bot not Ostriches say but when Mayr (ONE LONG ARGUMENT p34) pens "The clear statements about mechanisms of speciation that we now can make more than 125 years later are based on out understanding (as far as it goes) of genetics." I am willing to work ALL of Pascal's combinations within for demonstrably this is not arithemetic as Pascal concieved or one would want to do with transfinite arithemetic for instance one to one and onto any of would be Newton difference between mechanics and geometry for every thus Wright's geometric progression which in the spriit of Pascal could have been doubled (need to read some Chinese Numbers perhaps) that Cantor may have reduced or abstracted ( as we do not yet know what this physico-chemically would be to not mistake physiological genetics with transmission genetics. I would rather read fro Gould's typewriter than a genomic database in this regard. Pascal's double rather works better for creationism than evolution because common descent always works back to a conceptual binding at least while it is fra from clear if a created kind is a kind of this double physico-chemistry of an actual orthogenesis or merely a theroretical advance on the standard lines of mere statistical refinement as per Wright senso stricto of any latitude.
I am not worried about Nietschze as U can read II Poe however the Postscript of Kierkegaard is also not Gates' translated printer so as to what support infinity could even denumerable post-Quine I leave to my even rather sideing with Russel on the plurivocal (ambiguous in Quine's state) denotations of word "order" till 'ordertype'(Cantor) be either by consensus word "exponent" or some other number of Faraday Field LInes through the Chinese Model by any other internal, central, centric as writ prior etc as if not to change when going beyond Hydrogen fundamental series application precievable in flame spectra for any reciprocal illumination from/in New Zealand panbiogeography.
Precendently, THE MIND no matter Rene Thom etc is not uniformly red Agustine's, Descartes' , Pascal's, yet be minded is activity that not even the power of movement in plants is cardinally larger enough to, mask the so-called paradox of certaintiy without an act of faith. There is a creation/evolution illusion and this is not my opinion or backside only. When is 2+2=5 the same as 4 minus 0? 0 minus fourth?? Pascal's triangle has more biological space than extracting any infinity from the mouth parts of a mosquito rooted in polynomials nor is this Johnson's "nominal" Christianity. The difference with respect to the 1303 or earlier Chinese Triangle depends on graphical techniques (software testing metrics + morphometrics) o fPascal's section or the other way around for which at least linguistically Pascal can be read to have doubled all the points (please note these need not be {0,1}. The connection to accupuncture may not be electroronically counter indicated but the bioloigcal theoretical equality (for all the propotions to be granted) of Pascal's and The CHineses' traignles MAY BE ????? completely within the advance of the infinite in modern set theory by criticizing Quine etc yet the highest lights in the biological authority still prefered Chomsky to any Roman Road I may still be walking the telephone line extension on. Can you hear me now! I pray people will understand sooner than later so I can come into my own and my own come into me. This has not happened. Time for dinner I seem to have rotated lunch out. This should clear the way to reading in the creation Kierkgaard's "unscientific" as "scientific" in creation science which Western Bias continued to see religion where Islam was but it is science only post-Cantor and with John Paul 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-09-2002 10:22 AM nator has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 23 (14410)
07-29-2002 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 12:51 PM


True, I have not seen this double, anywhere on this board but the point is not "on the genetic level". That would refer to Dawkins say over Gould whom I may prefer to back more in the issue of how really a bauplan is formed. My point on these kinds of threads is that combinations or genetic recombinations now advertised as solved in jumping down a level of organization, is only sufficient to garner an extinction and any notion due to acutal geographic distributions in the whole earth out the complement that gives the reasearcher but this never retains EVEN BY LOGIC the whole arthemetica traingle whether as thought in the EASt or West as even Bertrand Rusell would have retained this order. Just becasue Quine thought Ohio was smaller than this does not mean that Woodger's Biology and Language is therefore in the same state of logic that Godel left Cohen etc etc nor is it clear as Mayr wants that this has anything to do with any biology made out of tabled elements (not theoretical field line triangles) beyond HYDROgen. I know this is a dump. But it had to go somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:51 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 6 of 23 (14417)
07-29-2002 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-09-2002 10:22 AM


Dear Schrafinator,
I read this article and it is more of the same: loss of traits. How can you be so happy about the loss of characteristics, while you need the gain of traits in Darwinian evolution? Evolutionists' logic really puzzles me.
Best Wishes
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-09-2002 10:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 07-29-2002 9:51 PM peter borger has not replied
 Message 8 by singularity, posted 07-30-2002 10:21 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 14 by nator, posted 07-31-2002 10:18 AM peter borger has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 23 (14434)
07-29-2002 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by peter borger
07-29-2002 8:47 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]I read this article and it is more of the same: loss of traits.[/quote]
[/b]
The loss of legs on the hindsections is the gain of a tail.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 8:47 PM peter borger has not replied

  
singularity
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 23 (14536)
07-30-2002 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by peter borger
07-29-2002 8:47 PM


Hi Peter
I think you overlook the implications of this paper. Genetically there has not been a loss- only a very slight change. The process is believed to have originally occurred from multilegged ancestor to six legged progeny, but could occur in the other direction via an equally simple genetic modification. The gain or loss of structures is arbitrary because the genetic change is simple and therefore quite possible in either direction.
This result doesnt directly demonstrate large scale evolution on a genetic level, but shows how simple genetic changes can cause large changes in morphology, reducing the necessity of transitional forms to evolution.
Shane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 8:47 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 11:40 PM singularity has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 9 of 23 (14539)
07-30-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by singularity
07-30-2002 10:21 PM


dear Shane,
You write:
" think you overlook the implications of this paper. Genetically there has not been a loss- only a very slight change. The process is believed to have originally occurred from multilegged ancestor to six legged progeny, but could occur in the other direction via an equally simple genetic modification. The gain or loss of structures is arbitrary because the genetic change is simple and therefore quite possible in either direction."
If I overlooked the article, and if this is all so simple, please explain to me where did the genes that specify the legs of the multilegged organism come from?
best wishes
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by singularity, posted 07-30-2002 10:21 PM singularity has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 10 of 23 (14542)
07-31-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
02-09-2002 10:22 AM


dear Schrafinator,
I have had a careful look at the nature paper (21 Feb 2002) you refered to.
In the link you mentioned in your posting it is claimed that:
"...the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects."
As a matter of fact this is not what the authors show in their Nature article.
All the authors show is that suppression of the abdominal limbs in insects depends on functional changes in a protein called Ultrabithorax (Ubx), which is encode by a Hox gene. Ubx represses the expression of another gene, Distalless (Dll), which is required for limb formation, in the anterior abdomen of the drosophila embryo. In the crustacean Artemia all of the developing limbs have high levels of Ubx. (As expected since they have more limbs).
The rest of Schrafinator's reference is interpretation and extrapolation accompanied by a figure of a shrimp-like organism and some insect (to what purpose?).
Why is nobody reading these papers for themselves? You will find out that evolutionists are not objected by jumping to conlusions. I strongly object to this type of "science".
Best Wishes
peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 02-09-2002 10:22 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John, posted 07-31-2002 9:46 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 07-31-2002 10:02 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 07-31-2002 10:03 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 15 by Philip, posted 07-31-2002 8:03 PM peter borger has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 23 (14558)
07-31-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by peter borger
07-31-2002 12:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
All the authors show is that suppression of the abdominal limbs in insects depends on functional changes in a protein called Ultrabithorax (Ubx), which is encode by a Hox gene. Ubx represses the expression of another gene, Distalless (Dll), which is required for limb formation, in the anterior abdomen of the drosophila embryo.
uhhh..... yeah. The long version of what Schaf said.
quote:
The rest of Schrafinator's reference is interpretation and extrapolation accompanied by a figure of a shrimp-like organism and some insect (to what purpose?).
Science is interpretation and extrapolation!!! If this is a problem for you then you might want to stop posting, since you depend upon interpretation and extrapolation as much as the rest of us.
[quote][b]Why is nobody reading these papers for themselves?[/quote]
[/b]
This study has had manifestations all over the place. I've read the Nature article and numerous offshoots.
[quote][b]You will find out that evolutionists are not objected by jumping to conlusions.[/quote]
[/b]
You will find that creationists are not objected by grasping at straws.
quote:
I strongly object to this type of "science".
YOu object to good science?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 07-31-2002 12:28 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 08-09-2002 2:35 PM John has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 12 of 23 (14562)
07-31-2002 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by peter borger
07-31-2002 12:28 AM


I had somewhat the same reaction when I first read the article back in February, but you've missed the important point. The puzzle was how morphological changes that require multiple gene changes across chromosome pairs could come about given that they're so incredibly unlikely. The results of the study revealed that a single change to a dominant Hox gene on a single chromosome can have a dramatic impact on body plan by turning on or off multiple genes on other chromosomes.
You probably believe the example illustrated in the article where six-legged insects evolve from multi-limbed crustacean-like ancestors is a case of loss of information or de-evolution, but it's actually an example of suppression of expression. Insects evidently still have the information for multiple limbs, but information was added to their genome, specifically in Hox genes, instructing many of the limbs to not be expressed.
The opposite process whereby an organism acquires limbs not previously present is, I think, well understood, but I have no reference I can provide. Perhaps someone else here knows more about this, but a couple possible avenues are obvious. Gene duplication is one where during reproduction two copies are accidentally made of a single gene. Another is a Hox-like approach where one gene controls how many times another set of genes is expressed. It's a simple change from saying "five limb segments" to saying "six limb segments".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 07-31-2002 12:28 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 2:53 AM Percy has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 13 of 23 (14563)
07-31-2002 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by peter borger
07-31-2002 12:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

All the authors show is that suppression of the abdominal limbs in insects depends on functional changes in a protein called Ultrabithorax (Ubx), which is encode by a Hox gene.

Oh, is that all ... I thought they were showing that a simple change
in the genetic make-up had a profound effect on morphology.
Oh, wait a minute ... that's what you said they were showing too
Isn't all of evolution 'only' functional changes in proteins ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 07-31-2002 12:28 AM peter borger has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 23 (14565)
07-31-2002 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by peter borger
07-29-2002 8:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Schrafinator,
I read this article and it is more of the same: loss of traits. How can you be so happy about the loss of characteristics, while you need the gain of traits in Darwinian evolution? Evolutionists' logic really puzzles me.
Best Wishes
Peter

I never grew any bottom wisdom teeth. They simply do not exist.
While you may consider it a "loss", I consider it a wonderful adaptation, because I didn't need to get any dental surgery.
When the land mammals which evolved into whales lost their limbs, it was an adaptation to moving through water.
Horses used to have many toes, but now they only have one.
The ToE doesn't require constant "additions", so you saying that it does belies your misunderstanding of the Theory.
All the ToE requires is change. It might be change that leads to more complexity, or it might be change that leads to less complexity. IT doesn't matter.
It all depends upon what the environment selects for and what variability exists within the population.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 07-29-2002 8:47 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 08-07-2002 3:23 AM nator has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 15 of 23 (14591)
07-31-2002 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by peter borger
07-31-2002 12:28 AM


Not trying to interrupt; but could you or anyone briefly help me understand the Borg's grand perspective here? Is he YEC, OEC, god-of-the-gaps, or what?
I've traced your discussions with earnest but have not seen you state your grand hypothesis of the cosmos, the biosphere, and/or the human-psyche (perhaps in 25 words or less; I wouldn't be offended by crudeness of words). Forgive my untowardness.
Meagerly,
Philip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 07-31-2002 12:28 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 07-31-2002 8:20 PM Philip has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024