Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.


« Causal Consciousness - Science of Mind
The ID Research Program Legacy »

Front-Loading and the Urmetazoan

by Krauze

Click to enlarge

This week there's been two good articles about how much of the machinery of animals dates far back. The first is by Frank Zimmer in The New York Times, titled "Plain, Simple, Primitive? Not the Jellyfish". The jellyfish is part of the cnidarians, the family relationship of which is depicted in the figure on the left (click on image to view it in full scale). Cnidarians are radially symmetrical, meaning that they're symmetrical around several axes, like the spokes in a bicycle wheel, whereas all the organisms depicted to the right of the cnidarian are bilaterally symmetrical, meaning they're only symmetrical around the head-to-tail axis (except for the echinoderms, which evolved radial symmetry independently). Bilateral animals use a special genetic toolkit for constructing their bodies, and cnidarians were thought to be an evolutionary relic from before this toolkit evolved. But recent findings have overturned this belief:


"Much to their surprise, the scientists found that some genes switched on in embryos were nearly identical to the genes that determined the head-to-tail axis of bilaterians, including humans. More surprisingly, the genes switched on in the same head-to-tail pattern as in bilaterians.

Further studies showed that cnidarians used other genes from the bilaterian tool kit. The same genes that patterned the front and back of the bilaterian embryo, for example, were produced on opposite sides of the anemone embryo.

The findings have these scientists wondering why cnidarians use such a complex set of body-building genes when their bodies end up looking so simple. They have concluded that cnidarians may be more complicated than they appear, particularly in their nervous systems. "

(I've written briefly about this before, as has Pharyngula.)

The second article is from this week's Nature, "Back to our roots" (registration required) by Helen Pilcher. It shows how the genetic toolkit has been pushed even further back in time, to before the evolution of sponges, indicating they were present in the urmetazoan, the common ancestor of all animals:

"There are signs that many other molecules associated with development in animals also occur in sponges. The Wnt family of proteins, for example, influences how cells become specialized and also helps to lay down the key spatial coordinates of the body plan in complex animals. Sponge cells make the Frizzled protein, a receptor that is activated by Wnt proteins. And they also make a variety of metazoan-like transcription factors - proteins involved in controlling gene expression - that are key players in development.

The fact that these genes occur during development in all existing animal lineages hints that they were playing a regulatory role in the embryos of the first metazoan. "The urmetazoan was probably quite sophisticated in a developmental and genomic sense," says [Bernard] Degnan [who is a geneticist at the University of Queensland]. This suggests that it already had the genetic toolkit to direct a body plan containing multiple cell types.

To find out where this toolkit came from, biologists are looking even further back in time, at the single-celled ancestors of the urmetazoan. Their modern-day descendants are choanoflagellates, unicellular creatures that look uncannily like sponge collar cells. Surprisingly, choanoflagellates harbour many of the tools needed for multicellular living."

This sheds light on a possibility off-handedly proposed by Michael Behe and later developed by Mike Gene: What if the first lifeforms were designed, containing the structures needed for the evolution of more complex organisms? If this is the case, I'd expect this "genetic toolkit" to trace back to unicellular organisms.

Image © Nature, 2005.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

This entry was posted on Friday, June 24th, 2005 at 10:31 am and is filed under Front-loading, Intelligent Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/front-loading-and-the-urmetazoan/trackback/

5 Responses to “Front-Loading and the Urmetazoan”

  1. MikeGene Says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 12:14 am

    Nice stuff! :)

    These recent findings lend support to the hypothesis of front-loaded evolution (FLE). As Krauze notes, we front-loaders expect this "genetic toolkit" to trace back to unicellular organisms because this is what FLE predicts. Multi-cellular life is not something that just happened, where what we see are simply the lottery winners frozen, tweaked, and perpetuated by selection. On the contrary, according to FLE, such evolution was rigged to occur.

    When I have argued for front-loading, one of the most common complaints was that FLE and Darwinian evolution (DE) were indistinguishable. I've dealt with this (and more) here, but I think we might be able to see one way in which a distinction is gradually emerging. As the excerpts provided by Krauze demonstrate, scientists, working from within the paradigm of DE have again been surprised by a new finding. And anyone who has ever taken a basic biology course understands the surprise, as jellyfish have always been described as primitive creatures and descendents of an evolutionary branch that reflected such a primordial state. It fit well within the paradigm of DE. But if we understand the process of evolution so well, why are scientists continually being surprised by findings that deal with very fundamental issues in evolution? Clearly, we are still in the very early stages of understanding evolution.

    Y'see, there is nothing surprising about these findings from the perspective of FLE. FLE does not provide intellectual inertia for the idea of "simple beginnings, thus simple = primitive." FLE expects "The urmetazoan was probably quite sophisticated in a developmental and genomic sense." More importantly, it predicts the toolkit should be housed among the unicellular life forms. If it is not, the front-loading of multicelluarity is fatally wounded. But not so with DE, as it has existed for over a century alongside the belief that unicellular life would not possess multicellular machinery.

    Another relevant point concerns something I wrote years ago:

    Secondly, our perception of evolution has been skewed over the last century. This is not surprising, as science is limited by the perceptions its tools can deliver. Yet how has the perception been skewed? From a morphological and behavioral perspective, life is immensely diverse. But the molecular perspective shows such diversity to be "skin-deep." Thus evolution, as evidence by the fossil record, has not been about developing novel software to solve adaptive problems. It has been more about reshuffling, testing, and deploying the molecular endowments it has been given. Put bluntly, all the evolution contained in the entire fossil record and inferred by our phylogenetic trees has been largely a footnote in the development of life. The really interesting and important questions concern the origin of this "animal in waiting" software that was infused into protozoan life forms.

  2. Comment by MikeGene — June 25, 2005 @ 12:14 am

  3. Guts Says:
    June 26th, 2005 at 5:32 am

    There seems to have also been optimization , not only by other mechanisms, but also by gene loss. Gene loss is also pretty underestimated in current Darwinian models.

  4. Comment by Guts — June 26, 2005 @ 5:32 am

  5. Krauze Says:
    June 28th, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    Readers are also invited to check out the *cough* thoughtful responses this post got at Pharyngula.

  6. Comment by Krauze — June 28, 2005 @ 3:20 pm

  7. Doug Says:
    August 22nd, 2005 at 11:00 am

    Thankfully Myers is open-minded to the idea. j.k.

    Front-loading would also help explain the Pax-6 similarities in the seperate phyla.

  8. Comment by Doug — August 22, 2005 @ 11:00 am

  9. Arik Soong Says:
    December 27th, 2005 at 11:32 am

    Lol, those reposnses are so funny. Especially Wad of Id's!!!

  10. Comment by Arik Soong — December 27, 2005 @ 11:32 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Featured Books


    The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene
    Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

    Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology

    System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts

    The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart

    Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge

    Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris

    Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey

    The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies

    Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch

    Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman

    Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur

    Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee

    The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards

    The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold

    The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet

    Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb

    The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse




Telic Thoughts is proudly powered by WordPress
Hosting provided by College Crunch.

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).