More stage setting
by MikeGeneBy analyzing the recently-sequenced choanoflagellate genome, the researchers discovered another similarity between choanoflagellates and most metazoans–their genetic code caries the markers of three types of molecules that cells use to achieve phospho-tyrosine signaling proteins.
Animals depend on tyrosine phosphorylation to conduct a number of important communications between their cells, including immune system responses, hormone system stimulation and other crucial functions. These phospho-tyrosine signaling pathways utilize a three-part system of molecular components to make these communications possible.
Tyrosine kinases (TyrK) 'write' messages between cells by adding phospho-tyrosine modifications, protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTP) are molecules that modify or 'erase' these modifications, and Src Homolgy 2 (SH2) molecules 'read' these modifications so the recipient cell gets the message.
Without these three molecules to help our cells 'write,' 'read' and 'erase' chemical messages between them, our bodies would never be able to conduct the complex tasks needed to survive such as reproduction, digesting food or even breathing.
Other genome analysis showed that some microorganisms contain some of these molecules in small levels, but never all three. This makes sense considering these organisms don't need the tools to communicate between cells since they are made up of only one cell. What makes choanoflagellates unique, however, is that they have all three of these molecules. What's more, they have relatively large quantities of them in amounts commonly seen in larger metazoan organisms.
The researchers conclude that the presence of the full three-component signaling system may have played a role in the development of metazoan organisms whose cells could communicate with each other in complex ways.
Once “these three molecules” were brought together in the ancestors of choanoflagellates, the task of the blind watchmaker would simply be to enhance their expression levels and a crucial door to animal evolution would be swung open. Obviously, FLE-inspired research would have us more thoroughly explore the genomes of a wider array of protozoans to determine the distribution of these components. Which reminds me – I need to finish my story.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Let's summarize. Observation: some fancy property X of multicellular organisms relies to some extent on genes that evolved from genes Y used by unicellular ancestors. Conclusion: The Designer must have wanted X to evolve so He (peace be upon his name) FL-ed Y into the ancestor.
Only one problem: the observation doesn't contradict the non-FL evolution model in any way. Therefore FL is an entirely superfluous addition to the model and has no place in science. It might sell some books though.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 10:21 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution.Evolutionary theory would predict that structures required for multicellularity would have antecedents. More particularly, that these anecedents would have functions within those more primitive organisms. Note the hypothesis based in the evolutionary paradigm.
The genome of the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the origin of metazoans: To discover potential molecular mechanisms underlying the evolution of metazoan multicellularity, we sequenced and analysed the genome of the unicellular choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis… Here we show that the physical linkages among protein domains often differ between M. brevicollis and metazoans, suggesting that abundant domain shuffling followed the separation of the choanoflagellate and metazoan lineages.
(Choanoflagellates sometimes form colonies, though not the species that was sequenced.)
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 10:46 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Mike,
It seems that the predictions of FLE and MET are exactly the same. The only difference is that when tracing backwards through the evolutionary history FLE expects to find a sudden starting point where something complex immediately sprang into existence where as MET would expect to find a continuous gradual path all the way back to the first self replicating molecule. Given this why do you always seem pleased when MET research finds more and more discoveries "compatible" with FLE? Since FLE adds nothing unique to MET shouldn't we expect nearly 100% of all discoveries to fit both theories?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2008 @ 11:12 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Regarding the proposed universal grammar, three levels of communication requires three levels of error recognition: to read requires inductive thinking to go with the flow, and so there is need for inductive error recognition; to write requires deductive thinking to build and derive from pre-givens, and hence there is need for deductive error recognition; to erase requires full disclosure of pregiven assumptions, and this commitment involves emotional error recognition.
Note that in science, inductive error recognition corresponds to Popper’s falsification principle. In phenomenology, emotional error recognition corresponds to Husserl’s stripping away of pre-given assumption. Deductive error recognition involves abstract thought.
Beyond the three levels of error recognition is the said ambiguity that is strangely felt: Kant’s antinomies. Science can progress as far as the innate vitalism, before transforming into a transcendental science.
Comment by Stephen — July 3, 2008 @ 11:57 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
But is that a prediction showing the power of an evolutionary explanation?
If we're at D (and we can only travel in a straight line) then obviously we would have traversed A, B, and C. That's not predicting; it's knowing the consequences of finding oneself at D.
If you had independent observers watching the unfolding of the evolution of choanoflagettates and they were to say, "It's more than likely going to take this route as opposed to those routes" then you'd have a prediciton.
But from the position of MET, with no foresight, none of the routes are more likely than any other. However, if the cell has constraints place on itself and one route would therefore be more likely than the other, wouldn't that at least be some evidence for FLE opposed to MET?
Comment by Doug — July 3, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
There's a difference. MET didn't and wouldn't have predicted the outcome.
From the vantage of a MET perspective today, you're looking at the way things are now and then you're gazing back in time and pretty much saying "Okay, it is what it is.".
MET wouldn't have contradicted any result…. because it doesn't predict the result. Whatever happens is what happens. Any evolutionary trajectory is possible. No foresight, no planning the future through the present. That's different from what FLE is claiming.
Comment by Doug — July 3, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The following is somewhat simplified.
Evolution is highly constrained by its past and by its present. Adaptation is by selectable steps. We expect that complex adaptations exist with regard to their current, not some possible future benefit (meaning reproductive advantage).
Evolution is going to tend to take the path that is of current benefit to the organism, constrained by its past, available variations, and without regard to any future benefit.
The paths taken will tend to be those which provide current benefits to the organism, or at least are not detrimental.
If you could show that it sacrificed current benefit for some future benefit. But we would have to look at cases.
Many trajectories are excluded by Natural Selection.
More generally. You can't just look at one aspect of biology and reach any firm conclusions. We have Common Descent. And we have observed mechanisms of evolutionary change that provide strongly supported explanations of what seems on first glance to be unexplainable, including complex adapations, irreducible structures, incredible organic diversity. We don't have a firm grasp on all the mechanisms concerning the earliest transitions, such as the historical origin of metazoa, eukaryota, or the origin of life. But we do have phylogenetic relationships with all the evidence pointing to evolutionary processes.
Sure, maybe the Designer put the planets on a plane, but it looks just like it would if they formed from a collapsing nebula.
For some reason, chunkdz didn't like the analogy of constraints tending to routes (channeling).
In any case, not every path is as likely as others. Evolutionary theory says this is due to localized selection. Front-loading says it is forward-looking. Sure, it's conceivable. But there's no evidence, no posited mechanism, no distinguishing test, and substantial evidence from the broad history of biology to indicate otherwise.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Actually, just to nit-pick, MET says we got to D by travelling through A, B, and C but FLE says we actually started at B
.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Raevma, Zachriel, and Todd B.,
What you non-teleologists need to show is that these three molecules are not the only ones that could have been used for chemical messages between cells in metazoans. It would also help if you showed that these three were sub-optimal. Otherwise you are left in the curious position of saying, "Of course evolution uses what is already present," without knowing why these special molecules were present, and why they apparently have the unique capability of being used for chemical messages in metazoans. It looks much too highly coincidental that molecules that perform one function in protozoans perform such a necessary function in metazoans when all three of them are present. Come on! Let's do some work here, non-teleologists! Quit being so lazy.
And for the teleologists, it would help if we knew why the three only appear together in choanoflagellates. What functions do the three serve there, but apparently are not needed in other protozoans? What functions do the single molecules serve in other protozoans? How necessary are they in protozoans? Could their functions have been performed by other molecules?
Comment by Bilbo — July 3, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Bilbo:
Are they the only ones then?
That is too funny. An IDist complaining that non-IDists are too lazy to do research. I hope you can see the irony.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Hi Raevmo,
Since there are so many non-FL evolution models, it’s safe to assume all bases are covered. But that’s the not relevant. What is relevant is that in their effort to better flesh out the Duck, the non-teleologists are painting something that increasingly looks like a Rabbit.
Hi Zachriel,
How so? So if the genes for these three proteins appeared in the ancestors of choanoflagellates through de novo origination, MET would be falsified? I think not.
Hi Todd,
Something that does not contradict MET is not the same being predicted by MET. Rather than engage in revisionism, we should consider the reaction of the lead figure in this research on choanoflagellates – Nicole King:
It was both surprising and amazing to find the protein machinery for multicellularity actually evolved before the origin of animals, before multicellularity itself, precisely because MET did not predict this. Of course, this does not contradict MET, as it would remain unscathed if protein machinery for multicellularity actually evolved before the origin of animals OR if protein machinery for multicellularity co-evolved with the origin of multicellularity. Either one fits comfortably.
You should have paid closer attention when reading my book. I inform you that I am not on a Duck hunt – I am not trying to refute MET by finding something it cannot explain. I’m simply pointing out that the Duck looks more and more like a Rabbit with each new discovery. It becomes increasingly plausible to think that an intelligent designer could have designed some aspects of the future through its original designs.
Now I’m sorry, but the complaints that you and Raevmo raise sound like whining to me; it’s as if you are troubled by the fact that I think your Duck looks like a Rabbit. Instead of whining and explaining that you prefer to ignore the Rabbit because you see no need for rabbits, you need to kill the Rabbit. And the way to do that is to make the case that FLE is implausible. Only then will a serious criticism have been raised.
The problem is that you could have made a more powerful argument against FLE a few decades ago. If only the original non-telic perspective had held up!
Comment by MikeGene — July 3, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Mike:
You've got it backwards. You want to show God did it, so the onus is on you. So far you have failed miserably, since all your examples are perfectly compatible with non-telic theory. Keep trying though, it's entertaining.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Raevmo:
LOL Raevmo wants creationist evidence. Maybe you should go to a creationist site.
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I thought proteins evolved. However, evolution does involve a number of processes so sequences can change substantially, or there may be minimal functional similarity. Historical reconstruction is inherently very tricky. It's difficult enough to determine Pompey's family tree, much less those of extinct ancestors of urmetazoa.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Guts:
I thought I already was. What is the difference between creationism and FLE?
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Zach, you didn't answer his question.
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Raevmo:
You really think that creationism is compatible with non-telic theory? Have all the critics started drinking early for July 4th weekend?
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Guts:
You're losing it, Guts. Remember what the doctor told you: take a pill twice a day.
Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Corny
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Sorry, I thought I had.
For a suitable definition of "de novo origination" (as discussed in my previous comment), then yes. MET would be falsified. Of course, whatever current version of the Theory of Evolution has been falsified and modified many times in the past.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Hum, your example points to something that is predicted by MET but not predicted by FLE. MET predicts that this protein machinery has a beneficial purpose in the choanoflagellate, FLE does not predict this. FLE doesn't rule out it having a beneficial purpose it doesn't require it. All FLE requires is a mechanism to ensure the feature isn't lost until the intended design can express itself. So if/when this protein machinery is found to perform a useful function in the single celled organism will you accept that as evidence that tilts the scales towards MET?
And I'm simply pointing out that your rabbit has a bill, likes to swim, and is covered in feathers. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and yet you assert that it might be a rabbit even though there seem to be no distinguishing features.
Actually all ideas should be rejected in the absence of evidence. So its up to you to make the case that FLE is even mathematically feasible, yet alone likely. Have you even attempted the relatively trivial task of "front-loading" some desired outcome into a MET inspired computer model to "prove" that front-loaded data could express itself through evolution? You have a lot of blurry photos taken over by the pond that you say might be rabbits. I don't think these justify your conclusions.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Zach:
There are still examples of things that evolve independantly rather than relying on ancient key components. It's rather nonsensical to think that everytime something like this is discovered, MET is falsified.
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Could you provide an example?
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Here is one example.
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Sorry, Guts. I misread your statement. MikeGene referred to de novo origination. I said proteins evolved. You said they evolved, too. We're good.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Todd:
I’m not Mike but I’ll give my opinion
If the protein machinery is the only way to perform this yet unknown useful function I would take it as weakening of the evidence for FLE in this case. It would also weaken the evidence if a more optimal way for cells to communicate was found.
If no useful function is found or if this protein machinery turns out not to be the “best” way evolutionarily speaking to perform this useful function in single celled organisms would it be additional evidence against MET in your view?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 3, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Zachriel:
You cannot be serious. Wow.
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Zachriel,
You had me confused there for a second. I thought you were beginning to argue for FLE side!
Comment by 0112358 — July 3, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I already explained how I had read MikeGene's comment. But if he meant independent evolutionary origin, then certainly structure can evolve in multiple lineages. That's certainly not an unusual circumstance, so I'm not sure why he would ask that question. Hence my misreading of his statement.
MikeGene: How so? So if the genes for these three proteins appeared in the ancestors of choanoflagellates through de novo origination, MET would be falsified? I think not.
Reading it as independent evolutionary origin reads as a non sequitur. They can have independent origins, but still have antecedents. So I don't know what he is trying to say.
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Of course he is referring to ancient key components , not just general "all organisms have DNA" type antecedents. MET is fine with whether things evolved independently or things deeply borrowed. The question makes perfect sense.
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
So where's the front-loading?
Comment by Zachriel — July 3, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
FLE predicts deep borrowing, if this example showed independant evolution FLE would have nothing to do with it (at least not directly).
Comment by Guts — July 3, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Hi Todd,
Nope. If this protein machinery does not perform some useful function, a front loader could not rely on the blind watchmaker to preserve it and pass it on into the future. What active FLE predicts is that this protein machinery is not essential for protozoan life. What would tilt the scale toward MET in this case is if the protein machinery appeared de novo as it co-evolved into existence along with multicellularity. I have explained this all before.
No, read your own words – “The only difference is that when tracing backwards through the evolutionary history FLE expects to find a sudden starting point where something complex immediately sprang into existence where as MET would expect to find a continuous gradual path all the way back to the first self replicating molecule.” If that is the only difference as you originally asserted, then the two are the same except for this difference. Duck/Rabbit. Now, if you want to insist the bill is a bill and not ears, then you need to start making the case for many more differences.
It depends on what you mean by evidence.
LOL. Trivial to you, maybe. Yes, often times I do wish I went into engineering and/or programming, as such an exercise could probably fill many a nights. So I content myself with placing the issue on the table and making the case for its viability. Perhaps someday, someone with the skills, experience, and feel for the whole thing might design such a meaningful demonstration all because they stumbled upon a new idea from an obscure book.
In the meantime, the living world has so much more to bring to the table.
I’m not talking conclusions – I’m talking perspective. Whether or not you, from your perspective, think my perspective is justified really does not matter. I’m not telling you to follow the Rabbit, Todd. But why do I get the feeling that you trying to insist that I abandon the Rabbit?
Comment by MikeGene — July 3, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
MikeGene,
Actually, I'm hearing more and more people talk about your book. Usually a mix of praise and confusion, since you take a tact they aren't used to. The ball keeps on rolling, the investigation continues.
Comment by nullasalus — July 3, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Fine, but I suppose it would help if you better defined what you meant by ‘antecedents.’ Are you saying that MET predicts we will find the homologs for these three genes in other protzoa? Or does antecedent simply mean any ol’ nucleotide sequence? Why doesn’t MET also predict that we won’t find homologs for these three genes in other protozoa because the three genes originated in the lineage that led to choanoflagellates?
Or to put it another way, consider what I wrote to Todd:
So let’s take to the two possibilities:
1. Protein machinery for multicellularity actually evolved before the origin of before multicellularity itself
2. Protein machinery for multicellularity co-evolved with the origin of multicellularity itself.
Why does MET predict 1 and not 2?
Comment by MikeGene — July 3, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Hi nullasalus,
Thanks for the feedback. In my original book promo, the only thing I promised was to ‘Think in ways you have never thought before.” So yes, it is a different tact on many levels.
BTW, what should be of interest to some is the way so many critics react as if I am defending and advocating YEC. Did anyone really think they meant it when they claimed it was all about defending science? science education? evolution? and/or natural selection? LOL. For many, it’s always been about promoting their non-teleological perspective of reality.
Comment by MikeGene — July 3, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
nullasalus:
My local library is receptive to suggestions about books to purchase. They don't always accept a suggestion but they do seem to take it seriously. Where I live local libraries are grouped by county so there can be dozens in the same library system. Multiple purchases for multiple locations are not uncommon.
Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
July 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am
A transition of predecessors occurring through divergence and natural variation in genomes.
Extant protozoa are the culmination of a half billion years evolution since the last common ancestor. What evolutionary theory predicts is that there was a common ancestor. Extant protozoa may or may not have ancestors of the progenitor genes.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of lineages have long been extinct. We have only the bare remnants of those early events, and those evolved through billions of generations.
The genes for multicellularity had ancestors in single-celled life. What these ancestors were, what function they had, when they diverged, how much gene shuffling occurred, are a matter of historical reconstruction. Being surprised by where and when these events occurred is not atypical in historical reconstruction. We might be surprised to find out that Pompey is cousin to Caesar, but we don't discard the notion of heredity because we are sometimes surprised by what we find.
In particular, King et al. found that canonical metazoan adhesion emerged after the divergence of metazoa, that some shared genes involved in signaling have divergent functional usage, and M. brevicollis shares many of the standard eukaryote tools.
But there is hope for Gappers!
It's a mystery!
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 9:26 am
July 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Yes, our library has it on order (but apparently the scroll edition is out of supply).
Comment by Zachriel — July 4, 2008 @ 9:30 am
July 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Zachriel:
You think Mike Gene might be Elijah?
Comment by Bradford — July 4, 2008 @ 9:50 am
July 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
lol Zachriel, you once again completely avoided answering Mike's question.
Comment by Guts — July 4, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Except for a guffaw from Raevmo, my comment was completely ignored, even though it was probably the most important thing said here. Let me try again.
Mike has pointed out that there is evidence that an important signalling system used by metazoans was probably in place in their last common unicellular ancestor. For Mike, this supports FLE. For non-teleologists, this doesn't since MET says evolution works with whatever is available. However, if the signalling system is a one-of-a-kind thing, that no other cominbation of proteins could do just as well, and if the system is so important that metazoans never would have come into being without it (and reproducing, digesting, and breathing seem to be that important), then the non-teleologists are in a quandary. How is it that so important a system for multicellularity just happened to be available? It would make far more sense on a FLE view, where a designer who was planning on multicellularity made sure the right proteins were available in the orignal cells.
In order to refute this view, non-teleologists need to show that other proteins could have provided the signalling system needed in reproducing, digesting, and breathing. And it would strengthen their view if they showed that other proteins would have done the job even better.
And yes, Raevmo, non-teleologists can be lazy. As in the present example. MET can explain why the signalling system evolved from those proteins. Therefore no need to look further.
Comment by Bilbo — July 5, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I agree and suggest this experiment
We genetically engineer Comb jellies substituting the other protein combinations found in single celled organisms as well as any other similar combinations for the magic combination in question
If the resulting animals are not viable this would be strong evidence that we are dealing with an indispensable component and therefore FL is on firmer footing.
Science is cool
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 5, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
July 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I saw your comment, but I was waiting for your reply to Raevmo's pertinent question.
They are not. There are many signaling systems. For instance, pSer/Thr signaling is also shared between the choanoflagellate M. brevicollis and metazoans, as well as other eukaryotes, such as fungi. As for pTyr signaling, the author's analysis indicates that though a simple system probably emerged in the common ancestor, they diverged and have different functional modes in a M. brevicollis and metazoans.
Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
July 6th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Zach
Yea there are nerve synapses,esp,radio waves and smoke signals as well but the question is are there other signaling systems that can perform the vital functions that this one does. If there aren’t then multi-celled animal life was impossible with out this unexpected gift.
from the article quote:
Without these three molecules to help our cells 'write,' 'read' and 'erase' chemical messages between them, our bodies would never be able to conduct the complex tasks needed to survive such as reproduction, digesting food or even breathing
End quote:
It’s hard to imagine how evolution is possible with out reproduction.
Do you know what the function of the three proteins are in M. brevicollis? Does anyone?
What was the function of the simple system in the common ancestor? was it evolutionarily optimal or was it flamboyantly excessive for a single celled creature? It seems to me these are questions science can answer.
I for one am very interested.
Quote
They also contend that these insights into the organism's genome may mean that the proteins used to help cells communicate may have other roles as well.
end quote:
In the absence of evidence how is the author’s analysis here anything more than informed speculation?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 6, 2008 @ 12:24 am
July 6th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The Theory of Evolution is based on fecundity, as well as variation and selection.
No one's quite sure at this point, but there is evidence that it has a distinct functional mode in extant M. brevicollis.
Most scientific hypotheses are informed speculation (and usually somewhat more useful than uninformed speculation). That's an important measure of research, that is spawns new hypotheses, that it raises more questions than it answers. My guess is that the research team, and others, are working on extending the research.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2008 @ 11:15 am
July 6th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Zach:
Exactly so no three protein combination no evolution increased complexity comes to a full dead stop.
To sum it we have a protein combination that appears vital for any multi-cellular life appearing in a single celled precursor where it is no way absolutely necessary. Simply as a gift to those that follow.
Perhaps it’s performing a function but no one knows for sure. We do know it’s not absolutely necessary for metazoans and the vast majority have gotten along just fine with out it for hundreds of millions of years
So it seems to me there are only two possible conclusions we can reach
1) The evolution of complex multi-celled life is incredibly unlikely and the chances of it happening again are virtually nil. Roll Earth’s tape again a million times and you get nothing more bacteria
Human Life is therefore a meaningless vanity.
2) Multi celled life was in the cards from the get go even to the point of frontloading this vitally system in it’s ancestors just waiting for the right time to express itself
Life like ours is therefore extremely important
What evidence besides it’s being preserved? Remember we have lots of examples of ultra conserved DNA that performs no function at al. If it is being preserved with out vital function this will tell us something very important about our world wouldn’t you agree?
That’s my guess as well I only wish someone would extend the research with an eye to the immense implications involved and not just to confirm their speculations.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 6, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
July 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Huh? How do you know that with such certainty? The evidence indicates otherwise.
Plants evolved multicellularity independently. So we know it is not unique to metazoa.
By observing what other domains it is found in combination with. But more testing will be required.
This is still very new data, so it's not surprising not everything has been determined yet. King et al. had proposed that sequencing M. brevicollis would yield important data about the evolutionary origins of metazoa, including signaling and cell adhesion. As I said, a good experiment will often raise more questions than it answers.
It's called hypothesis-testing. Help yourself.
Comment by Zachriel — July 6, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
July 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Zach:
from the article:
Quote:
Other genome analysis showed that some microorganisms contain some of these molecules in small levels, but never all three. This makes sense considering these organisms don't need the tools to communicate between cells since they are made up of only one cell.
End Quote:
If no other metazoans have this feature it's obvious it's not vital for metazoan existence
I agree that it might be vital for this one species but this is only one organism out of many many metazoans with no need at all for the combination.
If it is vital for only M. brevicollis then the evidence in this case tilts toward option 1 complex life is a meaningless accident.
If it’s not vital then evidence tilts toward option two complex life was waiting for the right conditions and the features necessary are preserved by other means than NS.
Do complex plants have this particular three protein combination?
So you concede mine is a testable distinguishing prediction flowing from an ID hypothesis.
cool now we are geting somewhere.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 6, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 8:16 am
You said that before. I ignored it the first time assuming it was a mistype. Most metazoa have pTyr signaling.
M. brevicollis is a choanoflagellate, not metazoa. They are the closest extant relative of metazoa.
The signaling evolved independently, but they evolved from a common eukaryote ancestor, so we expect some similarities and differences. While tyrosine phosphorylation is essential in animals, plants rely on serine / threonine phosphorylation (though there is some evidence of receptor tyrosine kinases).
No, I didn't say that. You have to propose a valid scientific hypothesis. "I only wish someone would extend the research with an eye to the immense implications involved and not just to confirm their speculations." is not a valid hypothesis. Your comb jelly 'experiment' doesn't even make sense. That's like saying you should be able to transplant chicken wings onto a person to make a viable organism. Sure they're homologous, but … In any case, it doesn't show what you think it should.
Comment by Zachriel — July 7, 2008 @ 8:16 am