Dollo's Law

News: Breaking stories & updates - The TelegraphWhat does this research do to Dollo's Law? And why the headline about "upsetting the ToE"? Doesn't it give further support to the ToE?

here's the article, the link didn't workStick insects upset theory of evolution
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 16/01/2003)The theory of evolution needs fine tuning after a stick insects study showed the first evidence of "re-evolution".Scientists thought that, once an insect lineage loses its wings, its descendants would remain flightless.They reasoned that, much like an airplane, there are thousands of ways to wreck its flying ability but few ways to ever enable it to take to the skies again.But their study shows that wings were lost in the primitive ancestor of stick insects, then reacquired four times during evolution.The first case of "re-evolution" of a complex trait, 50 million years after it was lost, is reported by Prof Michael Whiting, Taylor Maxwell and Sven Bradler at Brigham Young University, Utah, who analysed the DNA of 35 species of stick insects.In the journal Nature today, they publish the first evidence of what scientists thought impossible.Referring to Dollo's Law, which states that organs or complex structures cannot return to the state seen in an ancestor, Prof Whiting said: "This is the first example of a complex feature being lost and recovered much later in an evolutionary lineage."The big surprise is that these sticks have maintained the integrity of the underlying genes for wing expression over 50 to 100 million years while they were wingless."This suggests that the genes for wing formation must be closely linked to other features the organism needs to survive, such as leg formation, and hence it was possible to turn these genes back on later in stick evolution."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

apologies outblaze,....didn't mean to steal your thunder. I posted the same story before I checked your post.All the best.

HiNew here
Just looking around
but something already ---> those links !!
Breaking news ?( WHAT I THOUGHT )
1.- Dollo's law is no law at all ( Laws or physical , chemical , mathematical laws --> no empirical data ( however these ARE inputs
that are starting the "thinking " machine ) --> it is an outdated heuristic a rule of thumbs , by some ancient belgian professor -->
No more valid at all --> it is totally worn-out and replaced a
long time ago by another " proposal " --> an hypothetical
" atavism " scenario ,( yet a " plausible one" ? )
--> see
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls141.html2.- From time to time this old " dollo " horse of "irreversible direction of evolution " ( that is of course just one of the " choosen favourite "- interpretations ) "revitalised " by some apologetics ( from both camps ) and the "holly" semantics and other "chats "can go on undisturbed .... just talk till you get altzheimer ... (yes , as they say in my country " silence is gold ..."unless you can talk no more or at all --> pretty cynic? )However
3.- biologists do rely on the laws of physics , chemistry , on mathematics , informatics ,on their own empirical collection of data
and
on their recently adopted version of "thought" experiments
--> that is ---> the computerised simulations, virtual experiments and the writing of programs as an alternative way of " hypothesis -description and experiments "
However they still do some efforts to " explain "creationists simply ( you can maybe read " simplistic " ) " explain " and prefer to refer to some old books , text interpretations and tricky alternative definitions , terminologie -mimycries ( yes , just like some insects --> maybe they are "walking sticks" that constantly re-evolve the " same old "
propositions , as soon as their falsifications are forgotten or even worse , ignored )
of course no "empirical /heuristic " evidences strictly needed ...
and the " science as the servant " of religious dogma ... autority
and traditionand the evolutionists ?
That creed doesn't even exist ---> only them scientists and also
the usual chickens and morons in here , of course (--> they just are everywhere )and that's why there are SCIENTIFIC METHODS --> just to weed out all the crapBriefly
were I stand ?
scientific method just doesn't include "faith "
You can call this "naturalistic " of course---> however
( a very simplistic experience ? )I just had a very bad heart attack
Who helped me , you think ?( Yes , it's all about ME )Well it was no witchdoctor , no preacher -->
A skilled surgeon and not one who heard little voices in his "heart
or had some GSM connection with god ( I wasn't that desperate to take such old mystic-sorcerer or modern TV -preacher-healer )In for the money ?
yes of course
but nevertheless --> You may be expensive but GOOD --> worth the money , no ?well that's it
SCIENCE WORKS
WHo will PROVE THAT THE "SPIRITUAL" BRANCH ALSO DOES ?
or isn't it all abacadacra and wishfull thinking ?P.s.fascinating , these stick insects
fascinating , these haploid mites ( related stories , yes )But
what they are talking about( the media I mean ) ?
Re-evolution of wings in one specific species or closely genetic related groups of species in the "whole group " of these beast ?
( and on what level of classification if not the biblical " KIND " )I wonder
Can someone help me out ?
Yes re-evolution and not just once , but three -four -several times ?
Well reality is more "unbelieveable " then fiction ( that also includes the creationist fairy tales of course ) , ain't it ?
Hello , Dollo --> nobody home ?
Hello Dawkins and mount improbable ?I can try to read the original paper
--> is it already availeable ?I'll wait
OF COURSE ITS TOO SOON TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING AT ALL ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by tsjok45:
Hi

​

New here
Just looking around
but something already ---> those links !!
Breaking news ?

​

( WHAT I THOUGHT )
1.- Dollo's law is no law at all ( Laws or physical , chemical , mathematical laws --> no empirical data ( however these ARE inputs
that are starting the "thinking " machine ) --> it is an outdated heuristic a rule of thumbs , by some ancient belgian professor -->
No more valid at all --> it is totally worn-out and replaced a
long time ago by another " proposal " --> an hypothetical
" atavism " scenario ,( yet a " plausible one" ? )
--> see
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls141.html

​

2.- From time to time this old " dollo " horse of "irreversible direction of evolution " ( that is of course just one of the " choosen favourite "- interpretations ) "revitalised " by some apologetics ( from both camps ) and the "holly" semantics and other "chats "can go on undisturbed .... just talk till you get altzheimer ... (yes , as they say in my country " silence is gold ..."unless you can talk no more or at all --> pretty cynic? )

​

However
3.- biologists do rely on the laws of physics , chemistry , on mathematics , informatics ,on their own empirical collection of data
and
on their recently adopted version of "thought" experiments
--> that is ---> the computerised simulations, virtual experiments and the writing of programs as an alternative way of " hypothesis -description and experiments "
However they still do some efforts to " explain "

​

creationists simply ( you can maybe read " simplistic " ) " explain " and prefer to refer to some old books , text interpretations and tricky alternative definitions , terminologie -mimycries ( yes , just like some insects --> maybe they are "walking sticks" that constantly re-evolve the " same old "
propositions , as soon as their falsifications are forgotten or even worse , ignored )
of course no "empirical /heuristic " evidences strictly needed ...
and the " science as the servant " of religious dogma ... autority
and tradition

​

and the evolutionists ?
That creed doesn't even exist ---> only them scientists and also
the usual chickens and morons in here , of course (--> they just are everywhere )and that's why there are SCIENTIFIC METHODS --> just to weed out all the crap

​

Briefly
were I stand ?
scientific method just doesn't include "faith "
You can call this "naturalistic " of course

​

---> however
( a very simplistic experience ? )

​

I just had a very bad heart attack
Who helped me , you think ?( Yes , it's all about ME )

​

Well it was no witchdoctor , no preacher -->
A skilled surgeon and not one who heard little voices in his "heart
or had some GSM connection with god ( I wasn't that desperate to take such old mystic-sorcerer or modern TV -preacher-healer )

​

In for the money ?
yes of course
but nevertheless --> You may be expensive but GOOD --> worth the money , no ?

​

well that's it
SCIENCE WORKS
WHo will PROVE THAT THE "SPIRITUAL" BRANCH ALSO DOES ?
or isn't it all abacadacra and wishfull thinking ?

​

P.s.

​

fascinating , these stick insects
fascinating , these haploid mites ( related stories , yes )

​

But
what they are talking about( the media I mean ) ?
Re-evolution of wings in one specific species or closely genetic related groups of species in the "whole group " of these beast ?
( and on what level of classification if not the biblical " KIND " )

​

I wonder
Can someone help me out ?
Yes re-evolution and not just once , but three -four -several times ?
Well reality is more "unbelieveable " then fiction ( that also includes the creationist fairy tales of course ) , ain't it ?
Hello , Dollo --> nobody home ?
Hello Dawkins and mount improbable ?

​

I can try to read the original paper
--> is it already availeable ?

​

I'll wait
OF COURSE ITS TOO SOON TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING AT ALL ...

---

Tks for link tsjok45. It helped

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
apologies outblaze,....didn't mean to steal your thunder. I posted the same story before I checked your post.

​

All the best.

---

The other topic, "Re-evolution, is this random?", can be found at http://EvC Forum: Re-evolution, is this random? -->EvC Forum: Re-evolution, is this random? . It has been closed.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Yep , Found ithere it is ---> pdf format
Nature - Not Foundinteresting = especially -->Quote --->1.- Here we show that stick insects (ORDER Phasmatodea) diversified as wingless insects and that wings were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions.These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless PHASMIDS ( that is the ORDER phasmotodea ? ) and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification.NOTE
1.- not some re-evolution nested in the descdendance of one species nor in closely related species
but ---> distriduted widely in the phasmotodea - ORDER as a wholeQuote
These results support the hypothesis that the ancestral condition in Phasmatodea is wingless, that the first six basal phasmid lineages are entirely wingless, and that fully developed wings were derived later in phasmid evolution, on as many as four occasions.
Clearly, the presence of wings is a very plastic feature in phasmids, with congeneric species (for example, Lopaphus) exhibiting both partially winged and wingless states.2.-Note = ---> The wings thus "appeared " IN FOUR DIFFERENT LINEAGES ... ( that is in --> four different species at the least ,
not in one single general " phasmid " line of descendance
YOU CAN READ IT , if you TRY ... )
Convergence ? maybeand don't miss this one --->
Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects | NatureQUOTE :
it is not surprising that the basic genetic instructions for wing formation are conserved in wingless insects, because similar instructions are required to form legs, and probably other critical structures16. Studies of flight motor patterns in flying and non-flying phasmids indicate that the non-flying phasmids have retained the neural structures and basic functional circuitry required for flight, as indicated by flight-specific neural activity in thoracic muscles17, demonstrating that the loss of wings does not correlate with the loss of flight musculature and innervation. Wing development depends on multiple gene systems, transcription factors, secreted proteins, and receptors15, and mutations in any one of these factors may lead to winglessness. Given the multitude of factors involved in wing formation, it seems probable that the specific cause for winglessness will differ from lineage to lineage, but that the basic blueprint for wing formation can remain largely intact, even over large evolutionary time periods.3.- Ah yes I've already forgotten --> there is also a "creationist
brand " of systematics--> polyphylogeny something ? Who needs that ? ,4.- and no multipurpose genome needed ?
--> please , no pedantic ones needed on this topic to "explain "
--> I'am allergic for them and that's
definitely not very good for my asthma ( sounds familiar )Well
(advice to everybody before starting discussions )
JUST READ THE ORIGINAL PAPERS ( if you can find Them ) NOT JUST THE "POP " and THE "ENTERTAINMENT "CIAO
Tsjok

Dear Belgian Artist,You may consider the introduction of an new biological idea as pedantry, but your referenced figure simply is in accord with the GUToB:Let's have a look here:Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects | NaturePrograms for wing developmet were ALREADY present in the last common ancestor of all presented insects. The GUToB holds for such observations that the genetic programs for wings got inactivated --not lost-- over time, and can be expected to be reactivated upon triggers (from the environment (predations, whatever)). You, on the other hand cannot explain the figure from evolutionary theory unless you introduce the utter hypothetical idea of convergent evolution. It has been demonstraed it will not work. Semidentical genetic programs do NOT evolve-getlost-re-evolve, etcetera. Once lost they will be lost, unless reintroduced by horizontal tranfer via viral and/or bacterial inefctions. These observations on insects are only conceivable if the programs are dormant in a MPG, maintained by an elaborate DNA repair mechanism (as predicted from the GUToB).And I wish you goodluck with your asthma. Ask your phycician for the right medication.Best wishes,Peter

Hi, peter
just some multiple choice questions
( well others can join too )1-Is there no "convergence" ?
or is it just a "fabricated " argument ( by the evolutionist's of course )
-no DOLLO law --> ( agreed ) it's falsified ?
-Why do you think that "convergence concept " is not referring to
anything real at all --> it is "ONLY " based on the " fossilised belgian professor " and his DOLLO FLAW ? I suppose ( correct me if
am wrong )2-GUToB ---> is that your " explaination " -of - everything ?
( every month there is somewhere a " theory-of -everything ..."
nothing new or exeptional ... well again some one who wants
to sell some books or wants to start some research with the money
of the tax-payer ... nothing wrong with it though ... )GUToB ( = General and universal theory of Biologics ? I suppose ) is your " explaination " for morphogenese ?
Where can I find that "GUToB "stuff .___ Boy , I'am curious
what kind of drug it is ?I do not consider the introduction of a "new idea " pedantic
--> however "an idea " is a "guess " , a kind of
"inspiring " working- hypothesis : not allready from the start an explaining tool --> if it is = then it's only a speculation , at the bestSO
I'am not going to BUY " Gutob "without some
" proof of its existence and value "
furthermore --> do I need it ?
Theory ? Hypothesis ? Smoke screen ? or just an idea of yours ? (nothing wrong with that )
well just try once for a change ? a preview ? an excerpt ? an adress
( not YOUR E-mail adress ) where IS the publication ?p.s.
Of course --> I have not enough technical background to "understand "
Of course I'am a layman in your own technical field
Of course you are a lay man too when you "comment" in other fieldsOthers do "understand "( yes , your peers ) --> Well you are not the only " scientist " , nor the only preacher around
( there ARE something like a thousands of religions around -->All of them claiming absolute truth ( and wanting control of course )-->
but all trying only to SURVIVE --> yes by ALL means )
What is your particular brand ( of paranoia ) ?
Mine is --> a "black goddess -creatrice" who "designed "everything
Something wrong with that ? what about some VOODOO ?OF COURSE I'AM ONLY PUTTING " LABELS" ON ALL THINGS AROUND ME
( and on you too --> you surely ARE a genuine and interresting
"specimen " in any collection ( of butterflies ? fossils ? )
Quite something you know .... )and oh
Well thank you ,
I have a good physician and good medication
No advice anyhow asked , just start " explainations " ...Succes
artist tsjok ,
master in nothing but " illusions "
Belgium ? or from Mars ?
and my English too is my own brandNEXT

ALSOYou wrote"...These observations on insects are only conceivable if the programs are dormant in a MPG, maintained by an elaborate DNA repair mechanism (as predicted from the GUToB)... "OK
My questions ?How many MPG'S ( Multiple purpose genome , right ? )
you said ?You didn't mention ?
___ yes , the sheer number of different " Bauplans " and/or genetic
" instruction books " libraries - softwares ?Just one ? ---> Then it must be LUCA ( Last universal common ancestor )
Just several ? ---> one for the insects , one for the" plants " , one
for " all them little bugs "? an so on
How many "species" ( or ,if you like, holobarims ) there are exactly ? Don't even bother about all those that are already extinct?
Yes ,--> where they all came from --> all that bio-diversity
( all those escaped the flood --> Noah's ark , some say ... )Every MPG just an huge data-base ?
AND with availeable " steering mechanism " that switches
on and off ( kind of complicated " thermostats " ?
Well yes let's just trow in some cybernetics too ...fineYou talk about "loosing " for ever , parts of your information-capital ?
What about " new" capital ?
The descendance of the MPG "looses "genes OK --->what about the
" emergence " of new ones --> or
maybe these don't exist ..
Frankly I don't know ,please , just you tell me ...
( and I thank you for all the information/knowledge you are willing to share )p.s.
--> of course , the somewhat " militant " tone of my posts , is intended to "provoke " / stimulate futher discussion ...

ALSOYou wrote"...These observations on insects are only conceivable if the programs are dormant in a MPG, maintained by an elaborate DNA repair mechanism (as predicted from the GUToB)... "OK
My questions ?How many MPG'S ( Multiple purpose genome , right ? )
you said ?You didn't mention ?
___ yes , the sheer number of different " Bauplans " and/or genetic
" instruction books " libraries - softwares ?Just one ? ---> Then it must be LUCA ( Last universal common ancestor )
Just several ? ---> one for the insects , one for the" plants " , one
for " all them little bugs "? an so on
How many "species" ( or ,if you like, holobarims ) there are exactly ? Don't even bother about all those that are already extinct?
Yes ,--> where they all came from --> all that bio-diversity
( all those escaped the flood --> Noah's ark , some say ... )Every MPG just an huge data-base ?
AND with availeable " steering mechanism " that switches
on and off ( kind of complicated " thermostats " ?
Well yes let's just trow in some cybernetics too ...fineYou talk about "loosing " for ever , parts of your information-capital ?
What about " new" capital ?
The descendance of the MPG "looses "genes OK --->what about the
" emergence " of new ones --> or
maybe these don't exist ..
Frankly I don't know ,please , just you tell me ...
( and I thank you for all the information/knowledge you are willing to share )p.s.
--> of course , the somewhat " militant " tone of my posts , is intended to "provoke " / stimulate futher discussion ...

More food for thoughtcrime!During development in reptiles (and mammals), dental enamel forms from epithelial tissue which lines the surface of the gum, while the dentin which makes teeth is produced from a deeper tissue called the mesenchyme. However, in birds, this epithelial layer normally develops instead into the keratinous beak. Kollar and Fisher transplanted a small piece of mammalian mesenchymal tissue (which forms teeth) underneath the beak-forming epithelial layer of a developing chick (Kollar and Fisher 1980). Intriguingly, they observed that the chicken epithelium secreted dental enamel and directed the adjacent mesenchyme to form teeth. This would have been impossible unless the chicken still retained the genes and developmental pathway for making teeth. Thus, chickens have not yet completely lost the genes coding for tooth development.
(emphasis mine)
from ...
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

And interestingly enough the herpetologcal literature refers to a basically unreducible formal category in the word "ANLAGAn" to which Mayr probably mad the argument longer than any grand Gould tripod. Mayr had the figure upside down. I am quite certain of this. Read Croizat he disagreed with both Mayr & Gould. Croizat did not live to see Gould's visualization that in his more popular writings either shows direct influece unacknoweldged from Gould or else witnesses to Croizat's ability thrid hand etc to embody primary sources in his methods o f PANBIOGEOGRAPHY.

AlsoI wonderCan the GUToB already "explain " the very existence of the
" Mycoplasma genitalium," genetic- setup ?
Or is it too soon --> Maybe --> the GUToB is still in its " initial" phase ?---> especially
"From were " mycoplasma - critters " came ?( what line of descendance of course ) " and
" more primitive " organism also live on independently ( meaning that there are "different " and seperated independent "designs " regardless of the complexity of the design ---> different solutions for the same functional problems ..."Maybe this bacterium is a "degenerate " which
has LOST ( for ever ) a lot of his genes ? or is it simply a " living fossil " --> a descendant from the intitial "hypothetical " LUCA ?ALSO --> or both "man "and " mycoplasmum genitalum " , special and
seperate creations ( or the descendants of two different
MPG 's )?( from the many sources on the web
just put in your google search machine --> "smallest genome " )
This one -->http://www.er.doe.gov/..._articles_2001/June/Decades/77.htmlQUOTE -->
" ... The first genome completed was that of Mycoplasma genitalium, a tiny pathogen. When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for proteins.The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to contain some 30,000 genes (less than one-third of previous estimates but still a relatively large number). The tiny genome of M. genitalium is the smallest known for a self-replicating, free-living organism, although even smaller ones may exist.Mycoplasmas are parasites for a wide range of hosts, including humans, animals, insects, and plants.Scientific Impact: :
M. genitalium provides researchers with a model for the minimum number of genes and protein products necessary for independent (host-free) existence.
Microbial genomics, now one of the hottest fields in science, may reverse the traditional paradigm of biology, which until recently has relied on deductions about a single organism's genetic controls from observations of behavior and inheritance...">Well I'am very curious
You are the microbiologist
So ?ThanksTsjokp.s.
Yes I'am reading "selectively"Only point is --> acces to relevant information is NOWADAYS much faster --> However , still reading "old" books too ...---------------------------You can not prove or falsify
if you don't agree what methods are validYou cannot play a game
if you don't accept the specific rules

Dear BA,You have a lot of questions, but (as usual) I will adress them. Not now (too busy), but soon.best wishes,
Peter