A Tetrahymena Puzzle
by BilboLet's get back to biology. The latest from Mike Gene's blog:
[Caveman ask that somebody do that magic thing with links]
Setting up a culture of cells is a relatively simple task. All you need is some media, which would be a solution that contains all the ingredients needed for cell growth, and some cells, obtained from another previous culture. Put simply, you fill a container with media and add a small amount of cells. These cells then do what cells do – they divide and form a large population of cells over time. In other words, the machinery within the cells converts the simple biomolecules in the media into new cells.
But now I have a puzzle for you.
Lets begin by making a media with the following ingredients: amino acids, glucose, vitamins, nucleosides, salts and citrate. Next, let’s transfer a single Tetrahymena cell to 1 microliter of the media. That corresponds to a density of 1000 cells per ml. What happens? The cell does what cells do – it divides and forms a population of cells.
But what happens if you transfer a single Tetrahymena cell to 10 microliters of media (which corresponds of 100 cells per mi.)? Answer – it dies.
So why does this single-celled organism die when it is surrounded by an abundance of food and there are no predators or toxins around?
I’ll give ya the answer in the next entry.
Or does anybody here know the answer?
August 1st, 2008 at 7:54 am
[...] question. (Answer at the [...]
Pingback by Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Friday Highlights — August 1, 2008 @ 7:54 am
August 1st, 2008 at 7:56 am
[...] question. (Answer at the link) Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where [...]
Pingback by Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e29v5 — August 1, 2008 @ 7:56 am
August 1st, 2008 at 8:06 am
It's lonely. By the way, T. thermophila has seven 'sexes' and two nuclei.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 8:06 am
August 1st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I was thinking…is fear of large spaces called "agoraphobia"?… Seven sexes? You mean they have to find six other perfect mates? I would have thought they would have gone extinct by now.
Comment by Bilbo — August 1, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Mike's answer:
http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/the-tetra-puzzle-answer/#more-160
Wouldn't you know he would slip in something about front-loading? One-track mind, that guy.
Comment by Bilbo — August 1, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Oh yeah, Mike wrote about the two nuclei here.
Comment by Bilbo — August 1, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Any two.
Organisms can be optimized for clustering or for dispersal. T. thermophila are adapted for clustering (though strains vary as part of the life cycle), and use signaling compounds to assist in this process.
From the Theory of Evolution, we *expect* intermediates between single-cellular life and multi-cellular life. (Just as we expect the boundary between species to sometimes be indistinct.)
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
We certainly wouldn't expect this prior to the emergence of multi-cellular life, from the Theory of Evolution.
If you were some entity, completely independent with respects to owing your origin as well as fundamental form/substance and you were viewing some single-cellular life – all prior to the emergence of multi-cellularity; are you going to say that your kind (understanding the Theory of Evolution as it pertains to this foreign organism you are viewing) would anticipate the emergence of multi-cellularity?
Comment by Doug — August 1, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 7:01 pm
So, is there any research that supports Mike Gene's hypothesis?
Comment by Rock — August 1, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
The interplay between cooperation and competition between kin is fairly common in nature.
But we have a much simpler prediction. Given that multicellular life exists, and that they descended from primitive, single-celled organisms, we can then predict that they evolved through intermediate forms that had varying levels of intercellular cooperation and communication. This is standard evolutionary theory. It's like lungfish or knuckle-walking.
The origin of multicellularity is an active area of research, and may have important medical benefits.
Comment by Zachriel — August 2, 2008 @ 10:02 am
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
[...] News » News News A Tetrahymena Puzzle2008-08-02 10:54:19Put simply, you fill a small amount … contains all the ingredients needed for [...]
Pingback by A Tetrahymena Puzzle · — August 2, 2008 @ 11:54 am
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Wouldn't you call this circumstancial evidence?
1. You mean if we didn't find these "intermediates", the Theory of Evolution would be weakened?
2. Again, Mike isn't duck hunting. He's rabbit chasing. Could a designer front-load designs to be exploited by evolution? He's finding a lot of circumstancial evidence that suggests the answer is "Yes."
Comment by Bilbo — August 2, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
In my view he's yet to find a single piece of evidence that points towards "yes," rather he has found a lot of circumstantial evidence that doesn't say no. Mike likes to call all cooption "front loading" when all he seems to be demonstrating is that cooption is a very important mechanism. No one can even demonstrate that front loading is even mathematically feasible.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 2, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
In this case, I was referring to evolutionary transitionals. Whether extant organisms might have intermediate characteristics depends on the vagaries of biological history. However, we don't have to speculate. There are many extant examples providing ample support to the theory, and we have that in this particular case as well.
Sure, and maybe an alien civilization seeded the Earth's formation with a single pebble. There's just no evidence to support such speculation, and robust natural explanations.
Comment by Zachriel — August 2, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
So in this case, your theory is unfalsifiable. Mike's is falsifiable.
There are no natural explanations of the origin of life. Just speculations.
Comment by Bilbo — August 2, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Todd:
Perhaps not but OTOH I find it interesting that in scenrios where Von Neumann's Universal Constructor is discussed the initial self-replicating machine would need to gather energy and raw materials and have the capability to refine them (metabolism) into useable end products. All this subject to mathematical constraints described by physics theories. In all cases the initial self-replicator is itself the product of multiple machines which are themselves purposefully constructed to enable the initial Universal Constructor.
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
It's not my theory. It's the Theory of Evolution. We have evidence of all sorts of transitional organisms and species with intermediate characteristics. Falsifiable predictions have to be specific, not general.
As to the evolution of multicellular organisms, we certainly expect that they descended from more primitive single-celled organisms that were capable of cooperation and communication. If there were no extant organisms that exhibited intermediate characteristics, we could nonetheless predict the homology of the relevant signaling and adhesion compounds. And again, this is what we observe.
There's no complete history of the formation of the Earth, either. That doesn't mean every odd claim is of equal scientific validity. In any case, your response was a non sequitur, as my claim concerned the robust explanation offered by the Theory of Evolution. Front Loading is scientifically extraneous to explain the pattern of evolutionary history. Sure, it's conceivable that life was Front Loaded, just as it is conceivable that the Earth's formation was seeded by aliens. There's just no evidence to support such a claim.
Comment by Zachriel — August 2, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
But we would have two different patterns: With non-teleological evolution, precursors will come later in history. With front-loaded evolution, they will come sooner.
Comment by Bilbo — August 4, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
And with non-teleological evolution, we are left with the strange coincidences of all these precursors having two different functions: one for unicellular life, one for multicellular life. The more precursors we find, and the more specific they seem to be — so that their functions in multicellular organisms would not be easily replaced by other components — the more difficult it is to accept a non-teleological origin.
Comment by Bilbo — August 4, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Cooption is a typical evolutionary mechanism (e.g. fins to legs to arms to wings to fins). To show foresight, you might show that a current detriment was incurred for some future benefit.
Comment by Zachriel — August 4, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
So what is the mechanism that causes Tetrahymena to die rather than bloom in a nutrient substrate below a critical density?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
That would be stupid design, Zach, not foresight, since its chances of its surviving long enough to be used in the future would be minimal. Showing that an organism had a feature that it used, but wasn't really needed at the time, but served some needed future benefit…now that would be foresight. And Mike has shown that several times.
Comment by Bilbo — August 5, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
More from Mike about Tetra.
Caveman ask, How get rid of blue stuff? Oh. Post blue stuff first, then edit. Must be easier way, but Caveman no complain.
Comment by Bilbo — August 5, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
You mean besides not having enough growth hormone? Good question.
Comment by Bilbo — August 5, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the answer is not "It's lonely".
(But far be it from me to question a scientifically credentialled biologist.)
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
So has the hypothesis been confirmed, the growth hormone been isolated or at least concentrated and added back to the substrate? Does this procedure then result in a bloom?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Alan, I'm guessing that Mike gave us the answer with the idea that it had been confirmed. Otherwise, I think Mike would have been more cautious, and just suggested it as a possible answer.
And I'm sure Zach would have jumped all over it, if it hadn't been confirmed.
Comment by Bilbo — August 5, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Ciliates, and many other unicellular eukaryotes, emit regulatory factors into the extracellular environment. If we add these regulatory factors (e.g. cell survival factor TCSF1) into the medium, then Tetrahymena will proliferate. (As I said, the cell is 'lonely'.) This is also a problem when cloning metazoan cells, possibly implying a deep evolutionary connection.
Tetrahymenas have a complex life cycle. They reproduce asexually, but also have a sexual, conjugating stage (also mentioned above). Even though the organisms are single-celled, they often live in proximity with their close relatives. The evolutionary presumption is that there is balancing selection between the advantages and disadvantages of aggregation. But this is still an open question.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I read the article on quorum sensing, but it talks about behaviour switching and doesn't mention Tetrahymena.
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
And as if by magic…
HeLa and stem cells lack this inhibiting factor or lack the response, presumably?
Comment by Alan Fox — August 5, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
We build a foundation for no other reason that for the building which is planned to come later. We commit resources to plant seeds for no present benefit, but as a plan for the future. We sacrifice now for a future benefit.
So, according to your thinking, building foundations and planting seeds is "stupid design".
If it's being used for some current benefit, then it's an evolutionary advantage. If it's an evolutionary advantage, then Front Loading is empirically vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The idea is that closely related cells can gain an advantage by intercellular communication. It's not quite as simple as that, though. A mutated cell which doesn't play along can gain an advantage over its relatives, meaning that naïve altruism might be unstable.
Such cells have active telomerase, an enzyme which inhibits normal aging and apoptosis. Stem cells are also provided special growth factors to inhibit differentiation.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Bilbo: Wouldn't you call this circumstancial evidence?
You’re the expert. LOL
An evolutionary scenario for the transition to
undifferentiated multicellularity
Thomas Pfeiffer and Sebastian Bonhoeffer*
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/1095.full.pdf+html
Cooperation, competition? Such “teleological” terms! Someone oughta do something about biologists’ profanities! Biologists’ continued oral and literal assaults upon ateleology have to end! Where are the Thoughtcrime Police when you need ‘em?!
Multicellularity due to cooperation and the exclusion of competitors! Sounds anti-Darwinian to me.
A cooperative exclusion principle!
Wonder if front-loading explains that?
Comment by Rock — August 5, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN OF GENETIC CIRCUITS
AND CELL-CELL COMMUNICATIONS
YOHEI YOKOBAYASHI∗, CYNTHIA H. COLLINS∗, JARED R. LEADBETTER†,
RON WEISS‡ and FRANCES H. ARNOLD∗,∗∗Advances in Complex Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2003) 1–9
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=6101993022540185559
http://www.princeton.edu/~rweiss/papers/yokobayashi-adv-complex-systems-2003.pdf
Evolutionary design of cell to cell communications? “Evolutionary design”?! What a ridiculous oxymoron!
Mixing teleology and ateleology calls for the Spanish Inquisition!
See also
Directed evolution of a genetic circuit
Yohei Yokobayashi*, Ron Weiss†, and Frances H. Arnold*‡
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16587.full.pdf+html
See the related and citing articles
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16587.abstract
Comment by Rock — August 5, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN OF GENETIC CIRCUITS
AND CELL-CELL COMMUNICATIONS
YOHEI YOKOBAYASHI∗, CYNTHIA H. COLLINS∗, JARED R. LEADBETTER†,
RON WEISS‡ and FRANCES H. ARNOLD∗,∗∗Advances in Complex Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2003) 1–9
http://www.princeton.edu/~rweiss/papers/yokobayashi-adv-complex-systems-2003.pdf
Evolutionary design of cell to cell communications? “Evolutionary design”?! What a ridiculous oxymoron!
Mixing teleology and ateleology calls for the Spanish Inquisition!
See also
Directed evolution of a genetic circuit
Yohei Yokobayashi*, Ron Weiss†, and Frances H. Arnold*‡
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16587.full.pdf+html
See the related and citing articles
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16587.abstract
Comment by Rock — August 5, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Rock,
What ever are you babbling on about? Busy trying to redefine the words other people use? There is no mixing of telic and atelic, there is just your absurd claim that all verbs and most nouns are telic. Apparently you have a hard time separating the English language from the underlying reality.
I think the fact that telic supporters find these sort of language word games to be meaningful evidence of something shows that their brains are simply wired differently. Years of infection by harmful memes have left their brains unable to even conceive of an atelic world. I ask you this Rock, how do you suggest those titles should have been phrased to avoid anything someone like you would consider "telic"?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 5, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Sometimes big words confuse me too, TB. What word or words that I used are confusing you?
Evolution? Design?
(If you're as confused as I am… But I will define every word I use. So there should be less confusion about what I mean.)
Comment by Rock — August 5, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Zachriel,
We learned this 4 days ago on this very thread, and your answer is STILL wrong. Lonliness is not the reason that the bug lives or dies, since the bug is just as lonely in both scenarios.
Comment by chunkdz — August 5, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Given the meaning METers ascribe to evolution Rock is right. An oxymoron indeed.
Todd to Rock:
No need to. Rock has seen the arguments associated with the words.
Your counterclaim is absurd. METers contend evolution is an atelic process. Design implies the opposite. Hence the oxymoron. Todd is between a Rock and a hard place.
Rock gets it. Rock on Rock.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Thanks for asking.
It's not that hard to follow. The literal answer is that the concentration of regulatory factors is greater when the volume is less. The analogy is that it senses its own 'reflection', so it doesn't 'feel alone'.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Zachriel, the master is gone but not forgotten. He will soon reveal the error of your ways through his intermediary- Bilbo.
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel, can you identify for us the “many other unicellular eukaryotes” that “emit regulatory factors?”
Comment by Bradford — August 5, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Cooperation and competition are clearly defined terms in evolutionary theory, and they have nothing to do with teleology.
No, it's called using the same word, but with a somewhat different meaning. It's typical in science to coopt terms for new purposes. So, half-life doesn't imply that the particle is biologically alive. And a scientific law has nothing to do with the legal code.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
The protist M. brevicollis has already been discussed on this forum. But we also might consider yeast and other fungi, or even unicellular alga. The wide phylogenetic distribution suggests that signaling most likely evolved in ancestral eukaryotes.
Cells have complex intracellular signals. Conjugation or mating requires communication between cells. Signaling is a normal part of single-celled life, and it's easy to see how it could be adapted to a community life style.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
August 5th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Moderator queue please.
Comment by Zachriel — August 5, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 8:38 am
[...] and the Origin of Life August 6, 2008 — samsen Over at Telic Thoughts, Bilbo had a repost of Mike Gene's Tetrahymena Puzzle. Tetrahymena I should know is one of the model organisms in [...]
Pingback by The Tetrahymena Puzzle and the Origin of Life « Samsen’s Blog — August 6, 2008 @ 8:38 am
August 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Okay, I think that means that Zach has a comment awaiting moderation. So when I go look to see what comments are awaiting moderation, I should find one by Zach, right? So far I don't see anything. What does that mean? Am I incompetent or is there no comment by Zach awaiting moderation.
Or does Moderator queue mean something else?
Or am I in a parallel universe, where words have entirely different meanings?
Comment by Bilbo — August 6, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Bilbo, Zach's post was released last night. Its appearance preceeds his moderation request post.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Zachriel,
You did not say this five days ago. You said it was lonely.
Oh, I see. It wasn't lonely for other organisms, it was lonely for some 'reflective growth juice'. Why didn't you say so in the first place. LOL!
It is fun watching you backpedal, Zach. I'd stick around for more of your contorted writhing, but right now I'm "lonely" for a double western bacon cheeseburger. (My kind of "growth factor")
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Thank you and Bradford both for your attention.
Comment by Zachriel — August 6, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
That's how long it took you to ask for clarification.
We usually think of loneliness as a characteristic of social animals. So, my comment should have been easily recognized as an analogy. I left enough clues to reconstruct the correct answer, saying "T. thermophila are adapted for clustering … and use signaling compounds to assist in this process," while leaving room for the discussion to unfold. The only question remaining was why a singular organism might feel less 'lonely' in the smaller volume.
Let's consider a similar situation. Horses are social animals, and when stabled alone they develop nervous behavior, such as weaving side-to-side. Amazingly, a mirror can be 97% effective in reducing the vice.
Mills and Davenport (2002), The effect of a neighbouring conspecific versus the use of a mirror for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Anim Sci
The classic case with humans (1955, New York) was a building with long waits for elevators, resulting in complaints. Putting in new elevator shafts was impractical. Mirrors by the elevator doors solved the problem.
Environmental Psychologists and Designers know that a lone human in an oversized room will often feel exposed and uncomfortable, while in a small room, cozy and content. Many other animals have similar behavior, e.g. denning is a natural instinct in dogs.
Feel free to ignore the analogy. The protozoan senses and reacts (due to the concentration of regulatory factors) as if it is not alone when in a suitably small space.
Comment by Zachriel — August 6, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
August 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
ROFL!
Zach, I think YOU are lonely!
Comment by chunkdz — August 6, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Whoa! Now there's a non sequitur! You say that a designer would need to design a defect that had a future benefit. I say that designing a defect would be stupid, since it wouldn't survive long enough to be used in the future. Then you say that we build foundations and plant seeds for future benefit. And then you say that I would call this stupid design. Your missing a few premises there, buddy. In order for your argument to hold, you have to say that we purposely build defective foundations for the future or that we plant defective seeds in defective soil. I'll have to show this to Alan Fox, so he knows what I'm talking about when I say biologists have no more expertise when talking about design than the rest of us.
Since a front-loading designer would probably always design something that could be used in the present, so that it would survive into the future, a non-teleologist could always argue that Front Loading is empirically vacuous.
But let's go back to the original objection to Front Loading. It was always argued that Front Loading was implausible because the front loaded design would be lost before it could be used in the future. So Mike has been cataloging a number of components that have one use in unicellular life, and a different use in multicellular life, to show that front loaded designs wouldn't necessarily be lost in the future.
Now there's a shift in ground: "Of course! Evolution predicts that earlier components will be used in present organisms." That's the duck. Go for it! Of course, it would help if you showed how the earlier components came into existence to begin with.
Meanwhile, I think Mike is making a good case for the plausibility of Front Loaded Evolution.
Now, how do we determine if something was front loaded, or if it's just the blind watchmaker working with what it's got?
Good question. I'll get back to you on that, after I re-read that part of Mike's book, and look at more of his examples. If I'm the "official" interpreter of Mike's hypothesis (God help him), I better make sure I know what I'm talking about.
Comment by Bilbo — August 7, 2008 @ 11:22 am
August 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am
No, I indicated that we might find evidence of foresight if we can show that a current cost is incurred for some future profit. When we build a foundation, we incur a cost in time and resources which is only recouped upon completion of the building. When a farmer saves his feed corn rather than eating it, he may suffer hunger in the short term, but prosper in the long term.
This isn't a hard concept to understand. I'm not sure why you're having troubles with it.
Comment by Zachriel — August 7, 2008 @ 11:52 am
August 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
But Zach, you can see though that we being "social animals" more than likely wouldn't have (nor does there appear to be a logical connection) assumed that when you stated it was lonely, that that comment was given with respects to regulatory factors (also considering the seemingly random fact about multiple nuclei and sexes).
If you were to walk past a room with a sad faced child sitting amidst water, fruit, snacks (hell… vitamins) and were to inquire, "why are you so down?" and he replies, "because I'm lonely"… would a reasonable response be "Lonely?! but all this will provide you with the ability to grow".
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
August 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Doug, it was a puzzle for a puzzle.
T. thermophila can sense if it is alone. We can manipulate this sensation by putting it with others of its kind; by adding the scent of others (such as used medium); or by reducing the volume so it senses its own 'reflection'. Just as we can manipulate this sensation in horses by putting them in sight of a mirror.
A horse sees its reflection in a mirror. A person listens to voices on the radio. T. thermophila detects the scent of its neighbors. The first is photons, the second is pressure waves, the third is chemistry. All three evoke responses in the organism having to do with the presence of others of its kind.
You seem to be arguing my point. It isn't the presence of food resources, but the *perception* of being alone at issue. So the following remains a valid (albeit purposefully obtuse) response:
After our discussion, it should no longer be mysterious.
Comment by Zachriel — August 7, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Zach,
I see, by "current detriment" you don't mean defect, but "current cost." If the cost is so great that it means the organism loses in the competition to survive and reproduce, then it seems to me that would be a defect.
So it would have to be a neutral cost — such as non-coding DNA?
Comment by Bilbo — August 8, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
August 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
So if we find out that non-coding DNA can and has mutated into coding DNA, then is it reasonable to suspect Foresight? Or if we find that non-coding DNA has some other purpose that wasn't needed by unicellular life, but is needed by multicellular life, then is it reasonable to suspect Foresight?
Comment by Bilbo — August 9, 2008 @ 10:51 am
August 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Thank you for getting past the semantics. I apologize for any confusion. Just to belabor the point a bit, the word "detriment" comes from the Latin de- "away" + terere "to rub, wear," and has the connotation of impair or injure.
Basic evolutionary theory predicts natural selection as the primary mechanism of adaptation. If there is a current cost, then an organism is going to be disadvantaged, so these organisms will tend to be weeded out. Adaptation only occurs when there is a current advantage. (A more nuanced view includes drift and averaging effects.)
However, an architectural designer can presumably plan ahead to balance current costs against these competitive pressures, and turn a profit before bankruptcy. A structural foundation is not a defect, even if it is a detriment (cost) to the current balance of accounts.
Some non-coding DNA has function. There's a cost in unused DNA due to replication. This is more important in some organisms, such as bacteria, which are under strong competitive pressure to reproduce quickly.
I think you mean unused DNA. A gene might be deactivated by a mutation, then reactivated before it is completely trashed. You might try to show that the evolution of unused DNA has a direction towards a goal.
Now I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean unused DNA or just non-coding DNA? If you mean unused DNA (and if we can show this), and it hangs around for a few million years, then this would be a challenge. Deletion of Ultraconserved Elements Yields Viable Mice is one such anomaly. This is a fairly new discovery and is still under investigation.
Though this latter finding might be a challenge to the Theory of Evolution, it's not clear how this would be entailed in Front Loading. It may have nothing to do with foresight: other, non-telic mechanisms may be at work.
Comment by Zachriel — August 9, 2008 @ 12:21 pm