Yet again…older than expected.
by MikeGeneMore and more research continues to add to the plausibility of front-loading evolution. Consider the following discovery:
Hormones control growth, metabolism, reproduction and many other important biological processes. In humans, and all other vertebrates, the chemical signals are produced by specialised brain centres such as the hypothalamus and secreted into the blood stream that distributes them around the body. Researchers from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL] now reveal that the hypothalamus and its hormones are not purely vertebrate inventions, but have their evolutionary roots in marine, worm-like ancestors. In this week's issue of the journal Cell they report that hormone-secreting brain centres are much older than expected and likely evolved from multifunctional cells of the last common ancestor of vertebrates, flies and worms. (emphasis added)
The similarity is impressive:
Scientist Kristin Tessmar-Raible from Arendt's lab directly compared two types of hormone-secreting nerve cells of zebrafish, a vertebrate, and the annelid worm Platynereis dumerilii, and found some stunning similarities. Not only were both cell types located at the same positions in the developing brains of the two species, but they also looked similar and shared the same molecular makeup. One of these cell types secretes vasotocin, a hormone controlling reproduction and water balance of the body, the other secretes a hormone called RF-amide.
And check this out:
Both of the cell types studied in Platynereis and fish are multifunctional: they secrete hormones and at the same time have sensory properties. The vasotocin-secreting cells contain a light-sensitive pigment, while RF-amide appears to be secreted in response to certain chemicals. The EMBL scientists now assume that such multifunctional sensory neurons are among the most ancient neuron types. Their role was likely to directly convey sensory cues from the ancient marine environment to changes in the animal's body. Over time these autonomous cells might have clustered together and specialised forming complex brain centres like the vertebrate hypothalamus.
Mutlifunctionality correlates with the most ancient of types "“ remember this when a certain book eventually comes out.
And I really liked this too:
"These findings revolutionise the way we see the brain," says Tessmar-Raible. "So far we have always understood it as a processing unit, a bit like a computer that integrates and interprets incoming sensory information. Now we know that the brain is itself a sensory organ and has been so since very ancient times."
Exactly. Basic anatomy here, especially when you consider the reach of many cranial nerves. But the deeper part comes with the realization of how close the processing is to perception (i.e., start with front-loading and reach another MikeGene theme).
June 29th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Of course this research lends absolutely no support whatsoever to front-loading. Try reading the phrase just after the one you boldfaced, and maybe you'll start to understand. But I suspect not, given the level of apparently wilfull obtuseness displayed around here.
Comment by mtraven — June 29, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hi Mike,
Yea, Go Mike Go. More Science.
I have to run now, but I am going to go over it again in more detail but it looks like these are microtubule rich environments along with biologics acting like quantum computers.
GOOD STUFF!
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 29, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
For the benefit of the critics each "much older than expected" is a predictive confirmation for FLE and a consequent indicator that something is amiss with standard thinking.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
This is complete nonsense, nonsense which was amply refuted when it went around the internet less than a month ago based on a different finding (that sea sponges have some genes identical to those that code for neural synapses in vertebrates). How about some new nonsense?
Comment by mtraven — June 29, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Hi mtraven,
Your opinions are noted, but they are hardly surprising. I think you are projecting the fact that you read only the phrase that was boldfaced, as I did not say the research supports front-loading. It simply supports the plausibility of front-loading. Also, the point about processing and perception seems to have escaped you, so let me flesh it out.
Your stated opinion is a function of your perceptions. And your perceptions are significantly influenced by the context that is you. So what do we know about you. First, you are a closed-minded critic of ID. Second, being a non-teleologist, you likely conflate evolution with non-teleology. Third, your mind hears "God" when front-loading is written, and in fact, you think this blog is about whether or not religion is true.
Those beliefs will shape your perceptions. Thus, when I highlight recent research that adds to the plausibility of front-loading, I see a possible thread that can be weaved into the overall front-loading tapestry. But since it is only a thread that speaks to plausibility, you see nothing. You, because of your background beliefs, need something much more robust than a mere thread, you need something radical, air-tight, and overwhelmingly powerful. You need something other than surprising features of evolution, because, in your mind, evolution is non-teleology. You need something that comes not just close to a proof for front-loading, but a proof for the existence of God (since you think it is all about God).
That's all that is happening, mtraven. My open-minded investigative approach will never satisfy your needs, thus the points I raise will simply not be seen by you. Of course, I don't expect you to acknowledge them. You simply err in thinking that others should think and see as you do, especially when those others are found on an ID blog.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hi TP,
Yes, but all eukaryotic cells are MT-rich environments. For example, here are the MT in a smooth muscle cell.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Hi Bradford,
It clearly indicates that evolutionary theory is incomplete and that the modern synthesis merely scratches the surface when it comes to understanding evolution. As for front-loading, it adds to its plausibility. BTW, here are some more thoughts along these lines.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
MikeGene wrote:
To which mtraven replied:
Okay, I tried reading the phrase to which you refer. What's more, I'm happy to report I succeeded.
And your point is, er, what? That MikeGene thinks that if something is front-loaded, its multifunctional character won't be used in evolution by a variety of emerging species?
Surely MikeGene's point is, er, that the earlier multifunctionality will be, and yet couldn't have been due to the subsequent mutational and selectional processes ?
Or are you just being, you know, wilfully obtuse or something?:roll:
Comment by stunney — June 29, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Hello again mtraven,
As explained above, of course its nonsense to you. As for the refutation, I showed that such criticisms fell fall short of any type of "refutation."
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
As an aside, I just noticed something "“ there are now more front-loading entries that Dawkins entries. Several months back, some critics were trying to make some point about my supposed obsession with Dawkins and to support this, they cited the fact that there were more Dawkins entries than front-loading entries. I noted that the critics were not being scientific, as I looked at the entries as a function of time, showing that a slew of Dawkins entries correlated with significant public acts of this very public figure (for example, the publishing of a #1 bestseller). But as we can see, while Dawkins had his moment of TT sunshine, the theme of front-loading continues to beat at a steady pace.
Look for an up-tick in FLE-related posts. And expect the neglected IC category to some day come to life.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Hi Mike,
This science stuff is so much more interesting than politics and 2000 year old philosophical arguments. Let's do science!
Let me see if I have got this straight…
[Just saw the microtubule film clip and totally freaked out]
…I going to say something profound about the Vernanimalcula guizhouena…
Here is a link to pictures of it (warning, it is Pharyngula)
Here is a link to a more tolerable site with less pictures.
I was going to say something about how incredible it is to think of these tiny, tiny animals having a hormonal signaling system before the Cambrian Explosion.
but JUST LOOK AT THOSE MICROTUBULES IN ACTION!
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 29, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Hi TP,
I agree all this is immensely more interesting. As for the Cambrian, that is a juicy morsel. As Gould once noted, "so even the most cautious opinion holds that 500 million subsequent years of opportunity have not expanded the Cambrian range, achieved in just five million years. The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life."
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Hey, don't slam the 2000 year old philosophical arguments. Science doesn't lose any coolness with the company.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — June 29, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 1:03 am
What, pray tell, is the difference? As far as I can see they are the same, and the paper doesn't support either. The fact that a vertebrate gene is found in an invertebrate is perfectly consistent with evolution by natural selection. Some genes go back to very early times, some are more modern. So the paper doesn't say anything about the plausibility of natural selection, other than it confirms what we already know about the unity of life.
Now, I am not all that familiar with the theory of front-loading, but I assume it isn't so stupid as to say that all vertebrate genes can be found in earlier evolutionary stages. So, under front-loading, it is also the case that some genes are found to have origins very early on, and some are modern. So the paper doesn't really have anything to say about the plausibility of front-loading, either.
I'd be satisfied with arguments that weren't obviously wrong. And I haven't mentioned God at all in this post, or that much elsewhere, except in response to your side, many of whom (unlike you) do not hide their God under a bushel.
I am not a "non-teleologist". I believe purpose exists, and evolution is how it got here.
Comment by mtraven — June 30, 2007 @ 1:03 am
June 30th, 2007 at 2:57 am
mtraven wrote:
Selection selects. I don't think anybody at TT denies this truism.
But what does selection operate upon? Is it just random products of a purposeless variation machinery? Why should we believe that such machinery will produce the observed modular multifunctionality upon which selection then operates? Sure, earlier multifunctionality will be something that selection selectively operates on subsequently. But why expect unintended modular multifunctionality to exist long before its biological utility is taken advantage of by subsequent organisms?
I might use a car as a means of transportation, a status symbol, a home, a means to pursuing a hobby of tinkering with automobiles, a watertight storage container, a murder weapon, or a source of scrap metal. But pointing this out does not mean that the car was never the result of intelligent design. Why make that inference in the biological case if you're not prepared to make it in the car case? In both cases, multifunctionality existing at the outset logically and causally couldn't have been due to subsequent mutational or selectional processes. In the car case, it was front-loaded with a designed complexity which is the causal basis of its subsequent adaptive modular utility. So I think the FL argument is:
1 ) Biological data indicate a multifunctional complexity that forms the basis of adaptive modular utility.
2) Multifunctional complexity of this sort cannot be caused by mutational and selectional facts that occur subsequently to its existence.
Therefore,
C) Random genetic mutation and natural selection cannot be the sole source of biological multifunctionality.
Now, an opponent will simply assert that:
D) Any degree and kind of biological multifunctionality existing at T was caused only by random genetic mutational and natural selection processes prior to T.
I make two observations on that counter-assertion.
First, it's an assertion the evidence for which very often consists of statements of hypothetical scenarios whereby biological multifunctionality existing at T might or could have been (not was) caused only by random genetic mutational and natural selection processes prior to T, and often with important details pending. But this is weak tea indeed.
Second, if the FL opponent insists on D (as they often do to the point where the strong impression is given that they regard D as if it were an article of faith), one quickly ends up at the biological multifunctionality existing at T when T = OOL. And, as we saw in another thread, isn't that a bit of a nightmare for anti-FLers?
Finally, if the opponent's argument is that we lack evidence of a mind existing prior to, say, 10 million years ago, then that's a blatant case of petitio principii, since the FLer is saying precisely that evidence FL is evidence of a mind-like entity existing back then.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong or unscientific about treating minds as theoretical entities in the way that many naturalists do regarding things like sets, warped space, and subatomic particles as part of abductively inferred hypotheses to explain observed data, as one can readily verify by going through the first couple of pages starting here. It is illogical, unfair, and frankly unscientific to deny this avenue to FL-oriented IDers, or rule it out, or pooh-pooh it from the get-go.
Comment by stunney — June 30, 2007 @ 2:57 am
June 30th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Hi Mike,
Did you see this interesting bit of evidence about the evolution of Penguins?
http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/...
It isn't very interesting from a microtubule point of view, but I thought you would be interested in another example of "older than expected".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 8:59 am
June 30th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Mike Gene:
This finding doesn't indicate at all that the *theory* of evolution is incomplete, although there is no doubt that it is incomplete. All scientific theories are incomplete. What this finding does show is that biologists were wrong in assuming that a particular kind of hormone-secreting nerve cell evolved in vertebrates. This kind of cell hadn't been found outside of vertebrates, so it was a plausible working-hypothesis that it had evolved in vertebrates. Now we learn that very similar cells are present in some worm, so it seems this kind of cell evolved much earlier than previously thought. That's empirical progress for you. It doesn't refute or invalidate any of the basic mechanisms that are thought to be important for organic evolution.
In the site you linked to, you wrote:
Your somewhat grandiose claims are a bit economical with the historical facts. The view that evolution tweaks what it was handed (evolution is a tinkerer) is quite old and quite conventional, and there is nothing inherently teleological about it. You might like to read (Nobel laureate and molecular biologist) Francois Jacob's 1982 book "The Possible and the Actual".
Comment by Raevmo — June 30, 2007 @ 9:26 am
June 30th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Hi mtraven,
FLE is also consistent with evolution by natural selection. Essentially, FL facilitates natural selection. Perhaps you missed the part that was not bold-faced: "the hypothalamus and its hormones are not purely vertebrate inventions, but have their evolutionary roots in marine, worm-like ancestors" and "Not only were both cell types located at the same positions in the developing brains of the two species, but they also looked similar and shared the same molecular makeup." One might say that long before there was a vertebrate hypothalamus, it was in the cards.
The arguments are "obviously wrong" to you. I'll admit they may be wrong, but I surely don't see them as "obviously wrong." No, you did not mention God "in this post," you recently shared your perspective elsewhere that this blog is all about demonstrating the truth of religion. Since it is highly unlikely that perspective would vanish "in this post," there is no need to hide it under a bushel, as it does help us better understand the essence of your complaints.
As for me, I'm not trying to hide my belief in God under a bushel. It's just that this is a blog about ID and not about the truth of religion or the existence of God. Here, let me demonstrate. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that life was front-loaded and that evolution was thus rigged to reach certain objectives. From here, you'll need to demonstrate that God must be the designer/front-loader. If it is indeed true that God MUST be the designer/front-loader, then we should be discussing God at TT. If it is not true that God MUST be the designer/front-loader, then there is no reason for me to discuss God at TT. As such, the motto of TP comes into play "“ let's do "science."
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2007 @ 9:28 am
June 30th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Bradford:
A laughable sweeping claim. If it turns out that the Big Bang occurred 30 Gy ago, is that a "predictive confirmation" for FLE? Is it fair to regard the discovery of Homo floresiensis as an "unpredictive refutation" of FLE?
Comment by Raevmo — June 30, 2007 @ 9:38 am
June 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Hi Raevmo,
The particular kind of cell is quite an important kind of cell. And as we can see, evolutionary theory failed to anticipate a crucial piece of evolution. My point stands.
Who said anything about refuting or invalidating "any of the basic mechanisms that are thought to be important for organic evolution?" Not me. But as we can see, the non-telelogical perspective is just as comfortable with "when we thought" as it is with "earlier than we thought." Nothing here people"¦.move on.
All of this reminds me of evo-devo. Did this field get off the ground because developmental biologists finally decided to draw from evolutionary biology to illuminate their field? Nope. It got off the ground because some basic molecular and developmental biology was being done to open black boxes in development and those findings began to shed light on evolution.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2007 @ 9:43 am
June 30th, 2007 at 10:30 am
For the benefit of the critics each "much older than expected" is a predictive confirmation for FLE and a consequent indicator that something is amiss with standard thinking.
Why is this any more laughable or sweeping than the claim that life arose on earth through an unknown but ateleological process?
No, as it is unrelated to a front loaded concept. But the contention that genomic replication fidelity existed prior to the existence of genomic repair functions is relevant to what constitutes a viable replicating entity as is the prediction that cells would not survive the absence of those repair functions.
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2007 @ 10:30 am
June 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
stunney wrties:
This makes no sense to me. Evolution is good at finding new purposes for existing mechanisms (or variations on existing mechanisms). that doesn't mean that the new purpose (what you are calling "unintended modular multifunctionality") existed "long before", even if the mechanism did.
Trees existed for a long time before some primate noticed that sticks could be used as spears. Does that mean that the trees had a pre-existing "unintended modular multifunctionality" Well, yes, sort of, but it doesn't mean someone designed the new functionality in ahead of time. The whole point of Darwinism is to free us up from puerile, Panglossian thinking. See here for an entertaining example of how theists take this sort of ass-backwards reasoning to the point of ridiculousness.
Comment by mtraven — June 30, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
mtraven wrote:
[Emphasis added]
This makes no sense to me.
Comment by stunney — June 30, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
That's it? No insults, no lengthy rebuttals about how the existence of order and reason prove that goddidit? I'm disappointed.
In case your sincerely don't understand what I was trying to say: biology is like a junkyard full of parts that were "designed" for one purpose and are just waiting around for the tinkerer of natural selection to modify and repurpose for some other function. So machinery that today serves purpose A, might have been around at some long-ago point because it or a variant ancestor of it was useful for purpose B.
Comment by mtraven — June 30, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Just out of curiosity: How old does FLE predict that all these things are? There always appear these post that FLE would have predicted that these structures, genes or features are 'older than predicted'. Yet, it appears to be always a post-hoc prediction.
Is there any prediction that one can make, based on FLE, that says clearly how old some of these structures should be?
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Can anyone offer one prediction that differentiates between FLE and MET without FLE?
Comment by JAM — June 30, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Hello hrun,
You would need a particular FL hypothesis with a good feel for FL mechanisms to make this prediction. But first things first. Here, we can see the general, broad-brushed strokes of what FLE would look like. As of now, "older than expected" is subtle, yet substantive. This common theme of "older than expected" is expected from the FLE perspective once we a) understand the logic of FLE and b) understand that FL is not incorporated into mainstream evolutionary thought.
Do you have any documentation to support this perception?
As opposed to the way "just as we thought" or "older than we thought" both equally fit into the non-teleological gestalt? Nothing here people….move on.
As I said, you would need a particular FL hypothesis with a good feel for FL mechanisms to make this prediction. In the meantime, the common theme of "older that we thought" clearly implies that non-telic views of evolution either a) fail to make such predictions or b) keep getting it wrong.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Hi JAM,
That is something that can be considered down the road. Right now, getting FLE to stand on its feet is of primary concern.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Are you in need of a good hypothesis with mechanisms?
(Am I being impatient again?)
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 30, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
MikeGene,
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your reply. How can FLE ever stand on its feet if it doesn't make predictions?
Comment by JAM — June 30, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hi JAM,
Well, now you have changed making predictions that "differentiates between FLE and MET" to just predictions.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 1:30 am
Mike, sorry, I mean predictions that distinguish FLE from other hypotheses, of course.
Comment by JAM — July 1, 2007 @ 1:30 am
July 1st, 2007 at 3:26 am
mtraven wrote:
Well, I still don't understand your reasoning if it was intended to address what I wrote. And so I repeat my question:
Why expect unintended modular multifunctionality to exist long before its biological utility is taken advantage of by subsequent organisms?
Your junkyard analogy does not help your case. Junkyards contain designed objects. They don't just contain random stuff that nature produces by unintended processes.
I repeat the argument: multifunctional potential existing at the outset of some specific evolutionary history logically and causally couldn't have been due to subsequent mutational or selectional processes. In the car analogy, it was front-loaded with a designed complexity which is the causal basis of its subsequent adaptive modular utility. So I think the FL argument is:
1 ) Biological data indicate a multifunctional complexity that forms the causal basis of adaptive modular utility.
2) Multifunctional complexity of this sort cannot be caused or explained by mutational and selectional facts that occur subsequently to its existence.
Therefore,
C) Random genetic mutation and natural selection cannot be the sole source of biological multifunctionality.
In particular, modular structures normally indicate design and purpose. Computers exhibit this, cars exhibit it, buildings exhibit it, and so forth. Now, if we knew of an actual, not merely hypothesized, unintentional pathway which was the cause of modular structures that were acquired and used by a certain species long after those structures came into existence, then that would undermine the FL argument. But in the absence of such a known unintentional pathway, then the existence of long pre-existing modular biological structure begins to look as problematic for the non-design theory as DNA does, and belief in the existence of such a pathway for every instance of pre-existing multifunctional structure begins to look like an act of faith that shouldn't be confused with scientific fact.
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 3:26 am
July 1st, 2007 at 4:03 am
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I hope it's deliberate.
The analogy is actually pretty good. Junkyards contain mechanisms that were designed for one purpose and are available for being repurposed for something else. Genomes are full of mechanisms that evolved for one purpose and are available to be repurposed.
So your question:
Makes no sense. Evolution is a bricoleur that makes use of whatever is at hand, and as a result everything has "multifunctional potential".
Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 4:03 am
July 1st, 2007 at 4:36 am
mtraven wrote:
Were you given a talking points memo from the Department of Huh? Or, did you convert to ID? Or are you being obtuse?
Regardless, your junkyard analogy is a hopeless flop. Which is what I thought about it the first time.
If genomes evolved for any purpose, then neoDarwinian othodoxy is false.
Not every substance nor every structure has multifunctional modular potential within the bodies of organisms. For instance, lakes of molten lava don't.
And my question makes perfectly good sense. Your statement that "Evolution is a bricoleur that makes use of whatever is at hand" is a profession of faith, not an answer to the question, and one that, as such a profession, assumes what needs to be demonstrated, namely: that random variation and natural selection are sufficient to cause modular multifunctional structures to appear within living species long before all the modules are used by any species.
Comment by stunney — July 1, 2007 @ 4:36 am
July 1st, 2007 at 8:05 am
Hi JAM,
You don't need predictions that differentiate between FLE and MET in order for FLE to stand on its own feet. You only need to ask a few design-centric questions and then see what Nature has to say.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 8:05 am
July 1st, 2007 at 10:24 am
hrun:
If a pattern exists evidencing repeated surprise by researchers with their discoveries, would that not indicate discoveries ran counter to the expectations engendered by theoretical models?
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 10:24 am
July 1st, 2007 at 10:32 am
Bradford, in order to come to this conclusion, you first you have to show that the model you are talking about actually DID predict an age for these structures and that the age of these structures DOES NOT fit by this theoretical model. THat's the first task.
Then, if you want to make any claim about how this compares to FLE, you'd have to show a) that FLE actually makes a prediction about the age of these structures, b) how old FLE would have predicted these structures to be (preferably, before scientists actually found out how old the structures in fact are) and c) that this is actually closer to reality than what was predicted by 'regular evolution'.
Do you think any of these facts are known or have been made public here or anywhere else. I certainly have not come across them.
How about this: Here is my bold prediction. Based on everything I know about current research and mainstream evolution, I predict that we will find more and more structures that are 'older than expected'.
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 10:32 am
July 1st, 2007 at 10:44 am
Hi hrun,
Sorry, hrun, I mistakenly pressed the hole button and there is no way (I know of) to reverse that. You comment is here.
Subtle points are likely to be lost on those looking for sound-bites. You should read my reply to mtraven.
If you need sound bites, you indeed will "really wonder."
Why not? Are you saying that you don't understand evolutionary theory?
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 10:44 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
No worries about putting it in the hole, I can just repost it:
So the short answer is: "I do not know." or "It does not." or "That depends."
So again, the short answer is: "No, there is none."
I really wonder how you can make a statement like "This common theme of "older than expected" is expected from the FLE perspective["¦]" without actually documenting a) how old 'regular evolution' would predict these structures to be and b) how old FLE would predict the very same structures to be.
I personally do not know how old 'regular evolution' would have predicted these features to be. You apparently do not know (or can not or want not) say how old 'FLE' would have predicted these features to be. Yet, the 'older than expected' theme is supposed to be meaningful in some way. How is that possible?
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 11:11 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
I'm not actually looking for soundbites. But I am looking for explicit points and not some implicit or subtle points. I did read your reply to mtraven and I did not really get the relevance.
Look, the point is simple: Apparently the 'older than expected' theme is meaningful to you. I enumerated the facts that need to be established for this to be meaningful in terms of discussing 'regular evolution' and 'FLE'.
a) establish that both 'regular evolution' and 'FLE' make predictions about the age of these structures
b) establish that the prediction of 'regular evolution' is inaccurate and that the prediction of 'FLE' is more accurate.
Maybe I don't understand it. Maybe I'm not informed enough? Who knows. But you apparently do know. Otherwise you could not make this whole point about 'older than expected' being relevant to 'regular evolution' and 'FLE', right? You do know that somehow the predictions by 'regular evolution' are inaccurate that that 'FLE' somehow makes better predictions. I'm certain that you do not base this whole point on finding quotes by scientists where they describe their findings as 'a surprise'.
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 11:18 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Hi hrun,
Then you are wasting your time with me. I'm not going to tell you what to think; if you are truly interested and open-minded about this topic, you need to start thinking on your own.
Actually, this point is simplistic and ham-handed.
Only maybe? Are you starting to sense that mainstream evolutionary theory is largely about post-hoc predictions and thus trying to create distance?
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 11:40 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:52 am
stunney:
Um. no. The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that it explains how purposeful things can arise from non-purposeful mechanisms. If you don't (or won't) grasp this then it's no wonder you are confused about everything else.
stunney again:
You are trying to turn this into an OOL argument — why there is information- bearing genetic material in the first place — that's changing the subject. We don't know how life got started, maybe it bootstrapped itself through the RNA world, maybe it required antrhopic selection, maybe goddidit. But that's not what we are talking about. When I said "everything", I obviously meant "any genetically encoded heritable biological mechanism".
No, your restatement above simply demonstrates that you don't grasp the basics. The "modules" that "appear" are used by earlier species, that is the whole point. You are completely confused about "what is to be demonstrated".
Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 11:52 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Mike, I am thinking on my own. I am thinking about what one would actually need to establish, in order to put some relevance into the 'older than expected' theme.
I'm not asking you to tell me what to think. I'm asking on what facts you base your conclusion that the 'older than expected' theme is indeed relevant.
Heh. I thought it would just be simple logic. The implied claim is that there are two theories that make predictions about the age of certain structures. I personally have not seen EITHER of these theories make predictions about these structures. And I bet that nobody else on this blog has. Yet, even without establishing these simple facts, people apparently draw some conclusions.
Mike, let me ask you a very straightforward question. I already admitted my ignorance about the predictions made about the age of these structures by 'regular evolution' and by 'FLE'. Here is the question: Do you have any information about the predicted age of any of these structures based on 'regular evolution'?
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 11:57 am
July 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Hi hrun,
Okay, then it's what you need to see established.
Not really. I answered your question:
An open-minded person who was genuinely curious might have noticed a) and asked, "what is the logic of FLE?" You blew it. You chose to reduce it all to sound-bites. You should just admit that you are closed-minded and need something extraordinary to open that mind.
Sure, you are thinking in two dimensions.
Older than expected. What led to the expectation? Was there no theory to prevent the mistaken expectation or did a theory lead to the mistaken expectation?
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Alright. I admit it. I'm a closed-minded.
I apparently am unable to get factual statements from you about this matter. I like facts. Facts can be used to establish theories or compare theories. You seem to know the facts (predictions about the age of certain structures by 'regular evolution' and 'FLE') but you are unwilling to present or discuss such facts. Why is that?
I have asked truly simple questions: Do you have any information about the predicted age of any of these structures based on 'regular evolution'? — No answer. I just don't understand the reluctance to discuss these simple facts.
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hi hrun,
Thus, you will need extraordinary evidence to simply open your mind. That's okay, but a closed-minded approach is not a good way to get an open-ended investigation off the ground.
Older than expected. What led to the expectation? Was there no theory to prevent the mistaken expectation or did a theory lead to the mistaken expectation?
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Not at all. I don't need extraordinary evidence. I just need facts. And a closed-minded fixation on facts is perfectly reasonable, be it for open- or close-ended investigations.
Mike, you asked this before. I do not know. I stated previously that I do not know that 'regular evolution' does make any predictions about the age of these structures. So I do not know the cause of the scientists surprise, just like I do not know 'older than what'. Yet, you appear to know. You appear to know that 'regular evolution' does make predictions about the age of these structures.
Can you not just answer the simple question I posed previously: "Do you have any information about the predicted age of any of these structures based on 'regular evolution'?" Is this such an unreasonable question in the context of this discussion?
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
"Regular evolution" would predict that structures evolve as needed in responding to environmental pressures.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
So then that doesn't add anything to this discussion, right? Since all these structures discussed here (and in previous topics) had a function for the organism, before the function got co-opted or changed in higher organisms. So from your statement we can not conclude anything about the predicted age of these structures based on 'regular evolution'.
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Maybe, but it could depend on the number and breadth of the pathways from deep homology organism x to much more recent descendent y. Was cooption the only realistic pathway and do we see that pattern repeated over and over again? Narrowly specified outcomes can indicate design.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Bradford, I do not want to discount what you are saying, especially since I don't quite follow. But going back to the original question, do you agree that your statement really supplied no answer to my question?
Do you know of any other way that 'regular evolution' (or 'FLE' for that matter) makes any prediction about the age of these structures
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Not in the sense that there is an organized systematic methodology available for reference in such matters, at least none that I'm aware of. It seems to me that REers do not expect to observe evidence of present day systems found in ancient ancestral lines and my impression comes from the reactions of researchers who come upon such evidence. Findings along these lines would be consistent with FLE. Indeed the nature of FLE seems to demand such expectations but that is only my view.
Comment by Bradford — July 1, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
So solely based on the fact that researchers describe their results as 'surprising' or 'older than expected' it is concluded that 'regular evolution' predicts these structures to not be of the age they are actually shown to be? That is surprisingly close to what I suspected. Namely, that 'regular evolution' does not at all predict how old these structures are or how far back roots for specific structures can be found.
If indeed 'regular evolution' does not make any predictions about the age of these structures, would you think that some researchers find structures that are 'older than expected' to be relevant to comparing 'regular evolution' and 'FLE'?
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Hi hrun,
That's what they all say.
As I said, an open-minded person who was genuinely curious might have noticed a) and asked, "what is the logic of FLE?" You blew it. You chose to reduce it all to sound-bites. You've since admitted that you are closed-minded.
Think it through, hrun. I didn't invent the expectation, so where did it come from? Did it poof into existence? I doubt that. I'd say there was either no theory to prevent the mistaken expectation or a theory led to the mistaken expectation. Unless you have another explanation, take yer picks.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I thought it through. Obviously nobody can point to a prediction that 'regular evolution' makes about the age of these structures. So I would say that the expectation must have originated elsewhere than from 'regular evolution'. I can only infer that you agree. Otherwise, I am certain you would have just pointed me to some predictions based on 'regular evolution' about the age of any of these structures. You have not. I don't know of any. So, for the time being, it is reasonable to assume that such predictions in fact don't exist.
So we have two theories ('regular evolution' and 'FLE') one does not make any predictions about the age of these structures, while the other one may or may not make such predictions. So why is this relevant?
Ah, now I am not only close-minded but also not genuinely curious. While maybe to you "what is the logic of FLE?" is the most important question, in this case, to me it was not. I have previously tried to get clear explicit statements about what exactly FLE entails and found the going very hard. Thus, this time around, I chose to focus on establishing facts first. That, as it turns out, is hard enough already. I, for example, am still not sure whether or not you agree that evolution does not make any prediction at all about the age of the structures discussed here.
Incidentally, what prediction did FLE make about the age of the evolutionary root of the structures discussed here? Do the roots only extend down to the ragworms or do they extend further? Will they be found in all multicellular organisms? In all bacteria?
Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Hi Hrun,
So "˜regular evolution' had nothing to offer when it came to predicting when vertebrate hormone-secreting brain centres arose? Why is that?
Older than expected.
Nothing here people"¦.move on.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 am
My God, Mike. I have to admit I find this incredibly disappointing and somewhat frustrating.
You have made so many posts in response to my questions, yet, there is not a single shred of evidence that either 'regular evolution' or 'FLE' makes any prediction about the age of the structures discussed here.
I say, 'regular evolution' makes no such prediction. I'd be surprised if you could prove me wrong.
In addition, I don't think FLE makes any such prediction either. Otherwise, you could have easily answered how far back the root of the hormone-secreting brain centers reaches back on the evolutionary tree.
But, rather than showing any evidence that either of the theories in fact do make predictions about the age of these (or any other structures), you want ME to explain WHY 'regular evolution' does not make such predictions?
As I said, incredibly disappointing and somewhat frustrating. I'm going to bed.
Comment by hrun — July 2, 2007 @ 12:10 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
Hi Hrun,
FLE is a perspective that some guy on the internet is currently fleshing out.
"˜Regular evolution' is supposed to be a scientific theory, something that has been worked out by hundreds of brilliant scientists over the last century. Y'now, the Theory of Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, Nothing In Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, etc.
What you are saying is a) when it comes to making predictions about this, "˜regular evolution' fares no better than some internet guy's speculations and b) biologist's expectation about evolution came from someplace other than our current understanding of evolution.
Yes, I share in your disappointment and I'm off to bed too.
Comment by MikeGene — July 2, 2007 @ 12:24 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 am
mtraven wrote:
Oh piss off. I grasp it alright. If you'd read my original comment, it's letter D. You do know the alphabet up to D (including the capitalized forms), don't you?
Dennett is a big fat sack of nonsense.:smile:
No, I'm just correcting your foolishly inaccurate over-generalization. Get over it.
Even that's inaccurate. There are loads of genetically encoded heritable biological mechanisms that are as useless to one species in one location as they were useful to another species in a different location 10 million years previously. So no, not 'everything' biological is useful everyplace everywhen.
Not all of them all the time everywhere. You don't grasp the basics.
Being told by you that I'm completely confused about the basics is like being told by Paris Hilton that I'm in the limelight too much.
Go back and read my original post, especially from letter D on.
Comment by stunney — July 2, 2007 @ 12:25 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 am
Here is something else that's older than expected.
One more, sorry, infinitely many more times….
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Little darling
It's been a long cold lonely winter
Little darling
It feels like years since it's been here
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Little darling
The smiles returning to the faces
Little darling
I seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse, here it comes
Little darling
I feel that ice is slowly melting
Little darling
It seems like years since it's been clear
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse, and I say
It's all right
Here comes the multiverse, do do do do
Here comes the multiverse
It's all right
It's all right
Comment by stunney — July 2, 2007 @ 12:46 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 am
When it comes to making predictions about this, you didn't make any predictions about this–to my knowledge, at least.
I'm working on a talk right now. In the introduction, I point out that the more ancient a member of a large protein superfamily is, the more (and more varied) functions we expect it to have.
Would you agree that this is a prediction from a conventional evolutionary perspective? Would this also be a prediction of FLE?
Switching gears, if an enzyme hydrolyzes its substrate, would it be fair to assume that hydrolysis is its basic function, in an FLE sense?
Comment by JAM — July 2, 2007 @ 2:23 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 am
I note that, yet again, you are unable to point me to any prediction made by either 'regular evolution' or 'FLE' about the age of any of the structures discussed here (or in some of the previous posts).
It appears that both theories just DO NOT MAKE PREDICTIONS about the age of structures. Do you agree that this is the case? If I'm wrong, could you point me to some of those predictions?
Comment by hrun — July 2, 2007 @ 7:34 am
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
It's too bad that this discussed petered out in the end. I was hoping that somebody (not necessarily MikeGene, but maybe other regular posters) could comment on this whole 'older than expected' problem. As I said, I don't think either evolutionary theory or FLE perspective makes any predictions about how old the evolutionary root of certain structures are.
I was hoping that some of the posters here– maybe somebody who disagrees with my assessment– would jump in and present any age predictions of the structures discussed here (or in previous examples) based on either FLE or 'regular evolution'. It certainly would go a long way to establish the relevance of the 'older than expected' theme in regards of evaluating FLE and 'regular evolution'.
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
hrun,
I share your frustration, but I think that getting a straight answer on this was always a forlorn hope.
The logic behind all of these "older-than-expected" posts seems to be:
1. X is older than expected.
2. Modern evolutionary theory didn't predict that.
3. Therefore, modern evolutionary theory is suspect.
And:
1. X is older than expected.
2. FLE, if true, requires that something be older than expected.
3. X might be the thing that is older than expected.
4. Therefore, the plausibility of FLE is strengthened.
Stated baldly like this, the logical flaws are obvious. I think that is why Mike and others prefer to keep the argument implicit.
Comment by keiths — July 3, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Hi All,
At the beginning of this thread I starting talking about Vernanimalcula guizhouena but got distracted by MikeGene's fascinating film clip showing microtubules in action (I must have watched it over 30 times).
[watches microtubule video again saying "wow" again]
I will try to stay focused this time. As an engineer, I think better when I have a specific example of what is being talked about. While it is arguable that these are "older than expected" verses just old, the Vernanimalcula guizhouena are a significant find.
Here is a link I found…
Here is the Pharyngula link that has some nice pictures.
We now know these little critters had a hormonal signaling system.
How do we know this? From the link in the opening post…"It is likely that [two types of hormone-secreting nerve cells] existed already in Urbilateria, the last common ancestors of vertebrates, insects and worms"
The Vernanimalcula guizhouena descended from the Urbilateria.
I don't know about you guys, but this kind of complexity is older than I had expected. 50 million years prior to the Cambrian we have a critter with a pair of "external pits" that were sensitive to light (can you say "eyes") a digestive system and a hormonal system.
It looks like this little critter could SEE!
Do you think I exaggerate?
Also from the opening post link…
Hormones "…secreted in response to certain chemicals." Could it SMELL and TASTE too?
Since even single celled organisms have a sense of TOUCH, I think it is safe to say our little critter probably had that too.
Alright, I will admit the Vernanimalcula guizhouena probably had to hand out "I am deaf" cards to any verbalizing organisms running around, but all and all, for it's time the Vernanimalcula guizhouena were intellectual giants. That time was 600 MILLION YEARS AGO!
As a champion of a Third Choice I will point out the challenge of this for the other two choices. First of all, what evolutionary pressures would there be to cause such a complex creature to evolve? How much complexity is needed to eat microbes? How complicated do early organisms have to get before it is admitted they just might be more complicated than expected?
To the Intelligent Designer advocates. Other than an appeal to "mysterious ways", how did this all come about? How did
Godthe Intelligent Designer implement the plan? Some ID proponents point to the Cambrian Explosion as something significant. To these proponents the complexity shown by the Vernanimalcula guizhouena may be "older than expected" for ID, not "Darwinists".A hypothesis that suggests consciousness at a fundamental level of living organisms would expect organisms with interacting sub-systems earlier than simple evolutionary pressures would dictate.
I wonder how many microtubules were in a Vernanimalcula guizhouena.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 3, 2007 @ 8:07 pm