Evolution Reflected in Development

Below is an image of the developmental path from human conception to adult in comparison with evolutionary path from prokaryote to human.

Unlike Haeckel’s biogenetic law with its focus on physical forms, the comparison above also concerns activity, lifestyle and behaviour. Comparative stages may be vastly different in detail, but the similarity of general lifestyles and consecutive stages are there to be observed.

Human life begins in an aquatic environment. Toddlers gradually learn to walk upright from a previous state of crawling and moving around on all fours. The brains of children develop through daily interactions and experiences. This brain development accompanies the child’s increasing ability to achieve complex manipulation skills using hands that have been released from the task of providing support and locomotion, and also the practice of producing sounds using the various muscles of the mouth. Well developed brains allow for rational thinking and the creative use of language.

Human minds have brought about technological advances which have allowed human activities to engulf the planet. Signs of intelligent human activity are evident a good distance beyond the earth spreading ever further out into space.

The various forms of extant animals and all other life forms have evolved as an integral component of the living earth and the whole forms a dynamic system.

The various animal forms should be studied in the context of the complete system in both time and space.  Conditions would have been very different prior to the terrestrial colonization of earthly life In all probability none of the present aquatic animals would bear any resemblance to the aquatic ancestors of humans and other higher vertebrates save that at some stage they all require an aquatic environment for their continued existence.

From a point of view which regards physical organisms as the individual expressions of overarching general forms, the evolution of cetaceans need not have involved moving to the land only to return to the water at a later time. They may have reached the mammalian stage of evolution but in a way that was suitable for an aquatic lifestyle. They adopted the archetypal mammalian form in a way that suited an animal living in an aquatic environment and there would be no need to posit a terrestrial stage in their evolution.

It’s my belief that higher consciousness is ever present. Evolution is the process whereby higher forms of consciousness descend from the group level to the individual level. The most fully developed individual consciousness which I am aware of on earth can be found in humans but it is still rudimentary compared to the higher level group consciousness.

Plasticity is a fundamental feature of living systems at all levels from human brain development to the radiation of multicellular life. Paths are formed by branching out and becoming fixed along certain lines. It would be impossible to forecast specific paths but, nonetheless, there is a general overall direction.

Now that biological life has reached the stage where social organisms have become individually creative and rational, the all encompassing Word is reflected in single beings. This could not have come about without preparation and the evolution of earthly life is the evidence of this preparation. We, as individuals, are only able to use language and engage in rational thinking because our individual development has prepared us to do so. Likewise humanity could not arrive at the present state of culture without the evolutionary preparation in its entirety.

Focussing in at the lower level gives a picture of ruthless competition, of nature “red in tooth and claw”. But from a higher vantage point life benefits from this apparent brutality. For instance if a sparrowhawk makes regular hunting visits to a suitable habitat in your neighbourhood it signifies that this environment supports a healthy songbird population. In the case of the continued evolution of physical forms, survival of the breeding population is more important than any individual’s survival. In the evolution of consciousness the individual is the important unit.

I think it is a mistake to see biological evolution as a blind random groping towards an unknown and unknowable future.

896 thoughts on “Evolution Reflected in Development

  1. Corneel:
    Charlie: Why are these changes regarded as errors? Is it not possible that cells are organised in such a way as to allow particular changes to persist while correcting other changes.

    Me (Corneel): You may want to get a bit more specific on the “particular and other changes” bit. What exactly is the difference between a “particular” and an “other” change? How does the cell tell the difference?

    BTW: I know where you want to be going with this, but you should make this explicit.

    Charlie: I though I was being explicit. Genomic changes are complex. Just because we might be ignorant of all the intricacies of changes are we justified in assuming that they must be accidental? In a similar way prior to the technology that allowed us to observe the details within the cytoplasm of cells, it was generally assumed that it mainly consisted of molecules floating around waiting to bump into a suitable site.

    Corneel: No, you are not being explicit. Let me ask again: What type of changes is the cell trying to preserve? What type of changes is it trying to correct? How does the cell tell the difference?

    When we use words like “try” and “allow” it unavoidably implies human-like forethought. To save confusion I would like to point out that I do not believe cells have forethought and conscious intentions in any way similar to humans.

    Let me give you an explicit example as you have requested. The CRISPR Cas system in prokaryotes that I have mentioned above is such an example.

    Using this system the cell inserts strings of DNA into its own genome and destroys DNA inserted into the bacterial genome by viruses. This system has been set up to prevent invasive changes to the cell’s genome.

  2. Corneel:
    CharlieM: Why some conditions develop can sometimes be traced to the behaviour in the history of the organism and so mutations or changes in DNA structure are effects not causes.

    Me (Corneel): Very well. Then you better tell all cancer patients you meet that it is their own fault that they are dying

    Charlie: Please note, it is not my logic but your logic that survivors of the likes of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl who contracted cancer should themselves bear the responsibility. Since when has “some” been a synonym for “all”.

    Corneel: Neither is it a synonym for “none”. You are being disingeneous here. Did the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl who contracted cancer do so from “excessive exposure to the sun”? I do not believe these were the people you initially directed your comment at.

    Of course it’s not a synonym for “none”. My comment was directed to the behaviour of some people. I used to smoke and as a kid I occasionally got blisters from sunburn. Did this behaviour of mine increase my chances of getting cancer? I would say yes. I’m not allocating blame, just stating facts. Some health problems are self-inflicted and some are beyond the control of the individual. That is just a fact of life.

    Isn’t it obvious which category we should place some nearby resident who contracted cancer because of the Chernobyl disaster?

  3. As Charlie’s topic is getting swamped with commments about materialism and free will, I started a thread here.

  4. Corneel:
    Corneel: There is a rich and enticing narrative at all biological levels above the molecular / cellular level. You just don’t like that narrative and now you are pretending that it is incomplete. It’s not.

    Charlie: You believe we have complete knowledge of biology? And I thought only God is considered to be omniscient according to believers.

    Corneel: Do you believe that studying the levels above physics and chemistry will give us complete God-like knowledge of biology? If not, why on earth did you think that is what I meant?

    Just reformulating “So what you are saying is …” does not suffice. You are still trying to attribute absurd views to me.

    Then can you clarify what you meant by saying the narrative is not incomplete? I have obviously misunderstood what you were trying to say.

  5. Alan Fox:
    As Charlie’s topic is getting swamped with commments about materialism and free will, I started a thread here.

    Thanks Alan. I hadn’t reached the point where I was ready to participate in that area of the conversation as I always seem to be playing catch-up. But it is worthy of a thread of its own.

  6. CharlieM: When we use words like “try” and “allow” it unavoidably implies human-like forethought. To save confusion I would like to point out that I do not believe cells have forethought and conscious intentions in any way similar to humans.

    Sounds good to me.

    CharlieM: Let me give you an explicit example as you have requested. The CRISPR Cas system in prokaryotes that I have mentioned above is such an example.

    Using this system the cell inserts strings of DNA into its own genome and destroys DNA inserted into the bacterial genome by viruses. This system has been set up to prevent invasive changes to the cell’s genome.

    Yes, I am familiar with the CRISPR-Cas system and agree that it generates situation-appropriate mutations. Your example doesn’t really answer my questions though: What type of changes is the cell trying to preserve? What type of changes is it trying to correct? How does the cell tell the difference?

    The CRISPR-Cas system works by capturing pieces of phage DNA and inserting them into the CRISPR locus, a dedicated genomic locus for the storage of foreign DNA sequences. These sequences serve as a library to recognize and degrade potentially harmful invasive sequences. Clearly, those mutations are allowed because they increase fitness. Also note that no attempt is made to correct those mutations, like happens with polymerase proofreading.

    So, is it your claim that the cell is able to distinguish beneficial from deleterious mutations, even among those mutations that are not the result of a sophisticated system like CRISPR-Cas?

  7. CharlieM: My comment was directed to the behaviour of some people. I used to smoke and as a kid I occasionally got blisters from sunburn. Did this behaviour of mine increase my chances of getting cancer? I would say yes. I’m not allocating blame, just stating facts. Some health problems are self-inflicted and some are beyond the control of the individual. That is just a fact of life.

    Oh nononono. You stated that excessive exposure to the sun is not merely a risk factor, but an actual cause of cancer. It is not the DNA that calls the shots; By displaying certain behaviours we are actively causing certain downstream events. You even insisted that somatic mutations are effects, not causes.

    It is clear why that story appeals to you, because it gave you the idea of control over events that are usually attributed to unpredictable mutations of the DNA. But there is always a price to pay: if people are causing cancer by smoking a cigarette or having a sunbath, than the resulting cancer is definitely their own fault.

    So once again: is cancer caused by DNA mutations or is it caused by our own behaviour?

  8. CharlieM: Then can you clarify what you meant by saying the narrative is not incomplete? I have obviously misunderstood what you were trying to say.

    The relevant bit was included in the comment you responded to:

    Charlie: I believe that biological research lays too much emphasis on the chemistry and physics of life and this will not produce a satisfactory understanding of life in itself.

    This suggests to me your were saying that we have an incomplete picture of life because we are neglecting the levels above chemistry and physics. That is what I was objecting to.

  9. Alan Fox:
    phoodoo: Does GMO not involve changing DNA sequences?

    Alan Fox: Yes, that it is why the technique(s) is referred to as genetic modification. Sequences can be snipped and substituted. But DNA methylation does not change sequences but plays an important role in whether genes are suppressed.

    The genome is like a dictionary full of words in a sequence. The cellular processes are like a group of authors cooperating to create the narrative using these words.

    (I dedicate this post to Allan Miller, lover of shite analogies 🙂 )

    As Heraclitus might have said: ‘Shit is the purest and most polluted substance for some creatures edible and healthy for humans inedible and harmful’.

  10. Corneel:
    CharlieM: My comment was directed to the behaviour of some people. I used to smoke and as a kid I occasionally got blisters from sunburn. Did this behaviour of mine increase my chances of getting cancer? I would say yes. I’m not allocating blame, just stating facts. Some health problems are self-inflicted and some are beyond the control of the individual. That is just a fact of life.

    Corneel: Oh nononono. You stated that excessive exposure to the sun is not merely a risk factor, but an actual cause of cancer. It is not the DNA that calls the shots; By displaying certain behaviours we are actively causing certain downstream events. You even insisted that somatic mutations are effects, not causes.

    It is clear why that story appeals to you, because it gave you the idea of control over events that are usually attributed to unpredictable mutations of the DNA. But there is always a price to pay: if people are causing cancer by smoking a cigarette or having a sunbath, than the resulting cancer is definitely their own fault.

    So once again: is cancer caused by DNA mutations or is it caused by our own behaviour?

    It’s not possible to give a yes/no answer to that question. Are you familiar with Aristotle’s causal pluralism?

    One time in my teens my mother asked me how I came to have a black eye. Do you think she would have been satisfied if I told her that it was due to damaged tissue round my eye socket? With that answer I would have been in danger of suffering more damage to my body. 🙂

  11. Corneel:
    CharlieM: Then can you clarify what you meant by saying the narrative is not incomplete? I have obviously misunderstood what you were trying to say.

    Corneel: The relevant bit was included in the comment you responded to:

    Charlie: I believe that biological research lays too much emphasis on the chemistry and physics of life and this will not produce a satisfactory understanding of life in itself.

    Corneel: This suggests to me your were saying that we have an incomplete picture of life because we are neglecting the levels above chemistry and physics. That is what I was objecting to.

    Well yes, anyone who fails to see that life has its own set of rules over and above the rules of physics and chemistry will have a less complete understanding of the world. Again Aristotle’s pluralism points the way to the direction we need to be taking if we are to get a fuller understanding.

  12. CharlieM: It’s not possible to give a yes/no answer to that question. Are you familiar with Aristotle’s causal pluralism?

    I am not. Does it state that some causes are actually effects, whereas other causes are really causes?

    The mutations which occur in somebody who has skin cancer may be the result of excessive exposure to the sun. This is what caused the mutations which lead to cancer.

    Why some conditions develop can sometimes be traced to the behaviour in the history of the organism and so mutations or changes in DNA structure are effects not causes.

    The proximal cause of cancer is somatic mutations. Certain behaviours like smoking and exposure to the sun are sometimes called causes as well, but are more appropriately referred to as risk factors.

  13. CharlieM: Well yes, anyone who fails to see that life has its own set of rules over and above the rules of physics and chemistry will have a less complete understanding of the world.

    Right, and you suggested that contemporary biological researchers are part of those people. This is false.

  14. Corneel:
    phoodoo: So the central dogma has been violated-ta da.

    Or do you believe humans aren’t protein?

    CharlieM: Of course humans have violated the central dogma.

    Corneel: For my understanding: both of you are saying that James Shapiro was correct in claiming that the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology has been overthrown because humans are capable of artificially synthesizing polynucleotides.

    That is your argument, right?

    No. The central dogma indicates the natural order of processes. We would not expect the feathers woven into a bird’s nest to be re-inserted into a bird and we would not expect the sequence of amino acids in a protein to be re-inserted in the genome as a sequence of nucleotides.

    What it does show is that human minds are capable of consciously interfering with the natural order of things.

  15. petrushka: CharlieM: If you are unsure why DNA error repair does not correct every change can you categorically claim that this is an error of the system? I would think that because of the way mutations have been portrayed, the majority of those asked, what mutations are, they would speak of them as if they were unwanted errors.

    petrushka: Is there a homunculus that wants?

    Ask those who regard mutations as errors.

  16. petrushka: There’s an undistributed muddle in this.

    Humans can alter DNA.
    Cellular processes can alter DNA

    Therefore, cellular processes are human.

    Well anyone with thoughts like that would be the owner of muddled thinking.

    Perhaps Charlie et al can come out of the closet and say where (they) are in the spectrum of ideas.

    1. everything was created in a few days

    No, I do not believe this.

    2. Number one, but the creation has the appearance of a history.

    Nor this.

    3. Species are immutable. Some have gone extinct, but others have been created since the first wave of creation.

    Nor this.

    4. Species evolve, but under the direction of an intervening entity

    Nor this.

    5. Species evolve, but the path is preplanned and predetermined.

    No. The future is determined by the past in some measure but unplanned events can disrupt the course. For instance a cygnet is predetermined to become an adult swan, but there is no guarantee that it will achieve its potential.

    I view evolution as the process whereby living beings have the potential to take ever more responsibility for their own destiny, but not all forms reach this potential.

    The fact that some remain behind allowing others to progress further, gives a less decadent meaning to “animal sacrifice”.

    The path of evolution is set in the code.

    DNA code does not relate directly to phenotypes. It can be used in a wide variety of ways depending on circumstances. Codes can be used to transmit information but they do not set the message that is being transferred.

    6. Species evolve, but the path is stochastic, and prediction impossible.

    No. As with development there are particular directions life can take. The further down a road to specialization something takes, be it developing cells or evolving species, the harder it is to take alternative paths in other directions.

    7. Everything is determined, but unpredictable.

    No. Nothing is set in stone, but some predictions can be made with a high degree of accuracy.

    I’m guessing most ID folks lean toward four or five.

    I don’t see any evidence supporting five in NGE

    NGE is primarily processes that are observed not a tool used for predictions.

  17. OMagain: CharlieM: Most fungi use the wind to spread their spores. Do fungi have homunculi?

    CharlieM: Designed as in naturally (unconsciously) engineered by the cell. There are many examples in nature of skilful but instinctive design.

    If cells can unconsciously engineer changes, why can’t fungi have homunculi….

    If you want to believe that there are “little humans” in fungi, go ahead. I believe fungi have their own inherent wisdom.

  18. Rumraket:
    CharlieM: Most fungi use the wind to spread their spores. Do fungi have homunculi?

    Rumraket: This obsession with the word “use” is getting out of hand. You might as well say the clouds “use” gravity to get rain to the ground.

    Things affect each other, the word “use” in this context is just a convenient way of expressing this thing you call a “holistic” view of these interactions.

    Fungal spores are spread by the wind. So are farts, and so is sand and dust. The wind picks up the spores! Who is using who? The sand is using the wind to spread? The wind is using the sand to wear down and erode rocks? We can use the word without it in any way implying there is some sort of intention or comprehension in the events they describe.

    Now for most people this seems implicitly well understood. We are using a quirk of linguistics out of convenience.
    Sadly there are some people who read things into how humans communicate when we describe material interactions, that there are no good reason to think are really there.

    This kind of teleological interpretation is possible with all historical developments. In so far as one thing A leads to another thing B, in any imaginable universe or world, one can come up with this ad-hoc rationalization that A happened so as to produce B.
    But it just doesn’t follow that because A caused and/or led to B, that B is some sort of intended development or “end” for which A was created.

    Teleology is therefore not really rationally inferred from the historical developments, it is interpreted into the events. A sort of “teleology-colored” glasses you put on and through which you interpret the world. But what you’re seeing is just a product of putting on those glasses, and the world can be usually be equally well understood and described without this tint in the picture

    I think you are failing to make necessary distinctions. Can you see a difference between the following two processes? Swallows use mud to build their nests and pieces of mud use swallows to move to new locations.

    Would you criticize botanists for claiming that plants use a variety of methods of distributing their seeds? Have you ever watched broom bushes using the energy of their pods bursting open to eject their seeds, or sycamores using aerodynamic forces to scatter their seeds? What about cleavers (sticky willies), do they not use their velcro-like properties to cause their seeds to stick to the fur of animals.

    Isn’t it a wise design that ensures that farts are dissipated in the atmosphere? Otherwise we’d all be engulfed in our own toxic bubble, killed by our own noxious fumes. 🙂

  19. Challenging the origin of germ cells, DNA-Jock wrote:

    NO THEY DO NOT derive from somatic cells

    So where do they derive from?

    DNA-Jock regarding the article Mutation-rate plasticity and the germline of unicellular organisms:

    I was entertained by the complete and utter lack of any germ cells in the article.

    They do mention germ cells in the article. (The full article can be read here)

    It uses the term “germline” in a rather esoteric way. Care to explain in your own words?

    With unicellular organisms the somatic cells and the “germ” cells are one and the same thing. A colony of unicellular organisms is a more fitting equivalent to a multicellular organism.

    When a unicellular organism divides the subsequent division of the two resulting cells are not equal. One will contain the template strand from the grandmother and the other will contain two stands the oldest of which is only two generations. This makes a difference especially when growth is no longer exponential. As in a multicellular organism, not all cells are involved in transmission to the next generation.

  20. Good that you are learning about asymmetric cell division. How many chromosomes do these organisms have, and why would that matter?

    CharlieM: [quotes DNA_Jock re journal article Charlie cited:]

    I was entertained by the complete and utter lack of any germ cells in the article.

    They do mention germ cells in the article.

    [emphasis added by Jock]
    ROFL. Well, your reference does mention “germ cells” once, but the context is:

    …the mutation rate of organisms is reduced by specific aspects of their growth mode, not only for vertebrate animals, which set aside germ cells early in development, but also for organisms that do not.

    The latter being the subject of your reference. So your article “mentions” germ cells in order to exclude them.
    And to remind you of the context here, you were trying to dispute my statement that

    It remains a fact that germ cells are different from somatic cells, and the difference matters. If you want to take examples of things that happen in unicellular organisms or in somatic cells and extend them to germ line cells, then you need some basis for believing that this over-generalization is supportable.
    Other than the fact that it makes you feel good.

    Finally:

    CharlieM: [quotes DNA_Jock re germ line cells:]

    NO THEY DO NOT derive from somatic cells

    So where do they derive from?

    Other germ line cells. Which, to anticipate the next distraction, derive (over evolutionary timescales) from unicellular organisms, wherein the concept of germline/soma distinction is meaningless.

  21. DNA_Jock: Good that you are learning about asymmetric cell division. How many chromosomes do these organisms have, and why would that matter?

    Unicellular organisms can have single chromosomes or multiple chromosomes and be haploid or diploid. Why do you think it matters?

    CharlieM: [quotes DNA_Jock re journal article Charlie cited:]

    DNA_Jock: I was entertained by the complete and utter lack of any germ cells in the article.

    CharlieM: They do mention germ cells in the article.

    [emphasis added by Jock]
    ROFL. Well, your reference does mention “germ cells” once, but the context is:

    …the mutation rate of organisms is reduced by specific aspects of their growth mode, not only for vertebrate animals, which set aside germ cells early in development, but also for organisms that do not.

    You said “complete and utter lack”. Since when has one equalled zero? 1=0 was never part of the mathematics I was taught in school.

    DNA-Jock: The latter being the subject of your reference. So your article “mentions” germ cells in order to exclude them.

    They didn’t mention them to exclude them but to make a comparison of mutation rates.

    DNA-Jock: And to remind you of the context here, you were trying to dispute my statement that

    It remains a fact that germ cells are different from somatic cells, and the difference matters. If you want to take examples of things that happen in unicellular organisms or in somatic cells and extend them to germ line cells, then you need some basis for believing that this over-generalization is supportable.
    Other than the fact that it makes you feel good.

    Of course germ cells are different from somatic cells, gametogenesis sees to that.

    DNA_Jock Finally:

    CharlieM: [quotes DNA_Jock re germ line cells:]

    DNA_Jock: NO THEY DO NOT derive from somatic cells

    CharlieM: So where do they derive from?

    DNA_Jock: Other germ line cells. Which, to anticipate the next distraction, derive (over evolutionary timescales) from unicellular organisms, wherein the concept of germline/soma distinction is meaningless.

    My germ cells derive from the somatic cells of the blastula I once was.

  22. petrushka:
    CharlieM: Does Shapiro class endosymbiosis as NGE? In your opinion is endosymbiosis irrelevant to evolution?

    petrushka: I simply don’t follow your reasoning.

    Things happen. Sometimes really big things.

    The reasoning I am discussing belongs to Shapiro.

    petrushka: My question to you has several parts.

    Are events like endosymbiosis foreseeable? Is there any way to know in advance that it is possible, and if so, to take deliberate steps to make it happen?

    Shapiro believes that mitochondria originated by a process of endosymbiosis. I am not so convinced.

    If the theory that eukaryotes evolved through a process of endosymbiosis is true, would this have been foreseeable? Can future forms be discerned from earlier forms? According to Steiner “The reptiles have come forth out of the proto-amniotes; but the scientific researcher cannot draw the concept of the reptiles from that of the proto-amniotes”.

    The past cannot be changed but the future, although constrained by the past, is open.

    petrushka: What would you mean by deliberate?

    I suppose “deliberate” is a term that could be used in developmental processes, but I would be reluctant to apply it to evolutionary processes.

    petrushka:If not, then so what? The first word in NGE is natural.

    So you agree that the term NGE is reasonable?

    petrushka: How is this discussion different than the flagellum argument.

    There are two activities to consider, the process of development and the process of evolution. We can see how individual flagella form. Several activities combine in specific ways to produce and maintain a functional flagellum. An instruction manual could be written up on how a particular bacterium produces a flagellum.

    We do not have the same luxury when thinking about how flagella first evolved. This long article gives a very detailed account of three motile systems, flagella, cilia and archaella. It is a wonderful source of knowledge about these systems even if they do engage in a lot of speculation about evolutionary tinkering and the like. . From the conclusion they say:

    Propulsive nanomachines are another such recurring theme, cobbling together different building blocks under different circumstances to come up with a similar solution to an environmental challenge, with the broad theme of co-option of pre-existing components and functional exaptation.

    There is no getting away from the fact that anyone using terms like machine, motor, driveshaft, universal joint, bushing and so on are using terms borrowed from engineering. And Shapiro is just taking these terms at face value.

    petrushka: We have a complex, gee whiz phenomenon. What are you reading into it?

    I would ask what are those researchers who cannot seem to avoid using engineering terms reading into it? I read into it the wisdom of nature.

  23. petrushka:
    Instead of the loaded word, engineering, how about induced mutagenesis?

    What is lost?

    I would be happy for the term “engineering” to be replaced along with most of the other biological uses of terms borrowed from engineering.

  24. petrushka: CharlieM: No one is arguing against the necessity of chemistry and physics. But are they sufficient to produce the creativity?

    Apparently, yes.

    Unless you can point to something going on that isn’t chemistry. Good luck.

    There are plenty of activities that aren’t just chemistry.

    Within the next few minutes I am going to post this comment. When you read this it will mean that I have correctly predicted the future. How did I manage this by means of chemistry alone?

    (I wrote the above paragraph at 13:28 on my computer. It is now showing 13:32.)

  25. petrushka:
    Ah, the flagellum again.

    Imagine my surprise.

    You are obviously unfamiliar with Behe’s writings on other subjects other than the bacterial flagellum.

  26. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: Cells control what passes through them by various signalling processes the same way that it can be said that you control your temperature, your breathing, your food intake etc. They control many processes. Control does not have to be conscious control.

    Alan Fox: Oddly, I don’t control my body temperature; it maintains a narrow range of temperature without me doing anything. Let’s leave the “conscious” red herring on one side. For any cellular process that would reasonably be described as “controlled” can you describe the mechanism that would support your assertion “they [cells?] control many processes”.

    I shall consider copy/paste from a googled source a fail.

    You do have a level of conscious control of your body temperature. I assume you wear clothing suitable for the prevailing conditions and you live in heated accommodation.

    This is supplementary to bodily control that you cannot consciously control. Shivering and sweating are orchestrated at the bodily level and not at the level of molecular processes.

    If control is coordinated it has to be from the higher level to the lower level otherwise chaos would ensue.

  27. CharlieM: You do have a level of conscious control of your body temperature. I assume you wear clothing suitable for the prevailing conditions and you live in heated accommodation.

    Think about that, Charlie. When the nurse checks your temperature does she ask you to put a coat on or undress?

  28. CharlieM: Shivering and sweating are orchestrated at the bodily level and not at the level of molecular processes.

    Can you decide to sweat or not to sweat? Can you not shiver in extreme cold? I’ll grant you may be able to pretend to shiver but I’ll bet it’s not very convincing.

  29. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: You do have a level of conscious control of your body temperature. I assume you wear clothing suitable for the prevailing conditions and you live in heated accommodation.

    Alan Fox: Think about that, Charlie. When the nurse checks your temperature does she ask you to put a coat on or undress?

    And if she found it to be dangerously above normal would she instigate measures to help bring it down to a safer level? Increasing core temperature is one of the body’s ways of fighting infection but it can become dangerously high.

    Parents can be over zealous in protecting new born babies with too much clothing and coverings and this could lead to a dangerous situation in which the babies core temperature becomes too high. It’s all a matter of degree.

  30. Alan Fox:CharlieM: Shivering and sweating are orchestrated at the bodily level and not at the level of molecular processes.

    Alan Fox: Can you decide to sweat or not to sweat? Can you not shiver in extreme cold? I’ll grant you may be able to pretend to shiver but I’ll bet it’s not very convincing.

    I think you misunderstand what I am claiming.

    We do not have total conscious control over our body temperature, but we do have some measure of control. We have more conscious control than other animals.

  31. CharlieM: We do not have total conscious control over our body temperature, but we do have some measure of control. We have more conscious control than other animals.

    No, I think you misunderstood me. Warm-blooded animals such as mammals, birds, some sharks, have a physiology that regulates their body temperature between precise limits. Putting a coat on makes you feel warmer but it doesn’t alter your core body temperature, your body just has to work less hard to maintain it. Body temperature regulation is not under conscious control. Strategies for limiting the effects of cold or hot weather are common across all sentient species.

  32. The somatic nervous system has sensory and motor pathways, whereas the autonomic nervous system only has motor pathways. The autonomic nervous system controls internal organs and glands, while the somatic nervous system controls muscles and movement.

    This is like intro to Psych 101.

  33. Here I suggested alternatives to Shapiro’s use of the word “engineering”.

    phoodoo wrote:

    I propose Shapiro doesn’t change a thing. Rather I propose evolutionists start listening to their own use of words more.

    It’s true that Shapiro is speaking to orthodox evolutionists in their own language when he uses terms like “engineering”. But by doing so he is perpetuating a narrow way of thinking that is being taught in biology classes. This is just the Newtonian clockwork view of the universe updated to keep pace with technological advances.

    Physics is advancing beyond this way of thinking, biology is slow to catch up.

  34. Corneel:
    CharlieM: I tend to get on with most people I meet or interact with. (Apart from you lot of course )

    Corneel: Don’t be silly. We love you, Charlie.

    Words are cheap. You just love me for my body 😉

  35. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: We do not have total conscious control over our body temperature, but we do have some measure of control. We have more conscious control than other animals.

    Alan Fox: No, I think you misunderstood me. Warm-blooded animals such as mammals, birds, some sharks, have a physiology that regulates their body temperature between precise limits. Putting a coat on makes you feel warmer but it doesn’t alter your core body temperature, your body just has to work less hard to maintain it. Body temperature regulation is not under conscious control. Strategies for limiting the effects of cold or hot weather are common across all sentient species.

    A man steps out of his house to walk to the nearest shop to buy some more vodka as he has just finished his last bottle. The shop is 20 miles away in Yakutsk. He is dressed in shorts and a t shirt and he soon begins to shiver uncontrollably. He rushes back to his house and puts on more suitable clothing, everything from thermal underwear to a fur overcoat, hat and gloves. He sets off once more. This time he is nice and cosy as he makes his way along the road.

    Had he not taken this decision to put on more appropriate clothing he would have no doubt become hypothermic and died on the road. His conscious actions prevented his core temperature from falling to a fatal level.

    We can take control without knowing the details of the systems that the body uses to regulates its temperature. His actions brought his shivering and much else besides under control. He may not have known anything about the inherent wisdom of the body to regulate temperature but he could still use it to his advantage. The body can cope with only so much heat loss and he knew how to minimize this loss.

    The hierarchy of temperature regulation is downwards from the body to the systems, to the organs, to the cells, to the intracellular processes.

  36. petrushka:

    The somatic nervous system has sensory and motor pathways, whereas the autonomic nervous system only has motor pathways. The autonomic nervous system controls internal organs and glands, while the somatic nervous system controls muscles and movement.

    This is like intro to Psych 101.

    As I said, the body controls the systems and the systems control the organs…

  37. Alan Fox to Phoodoo:
    Now, I didn’t say that. Breathing is largely under subconscious control. The reasons why humans need to over-ride the subconscious control is because the alimentary system and breathing system have evolved in a way that requires breathing and ingestion to be coordinated. Imagine if the grand designer had kept the digestive and breathing systems separate! And breath control is crucial for speech.

    This is an interesting paragraph. Is it just humans that need to coordinate breathing with eating and drinking? So do all other animals with this arrangement
    require conscious control of their breathing?

    Think of all the coordinated control of the jaw, lips, tongue, throat and lungs required for speech. And then there are auditory systems capable of receiving and interpreting the sounds.

    Vocal capability, manual dexterity, large brains, all contribute in the progression from creatures to individual creators.

  38. DNA_Jock:
    Yeah, trachea/esophagus is quite the hack, but the winner is still, as the old joke notes, running a sewer through a recreational area.

    Billions upon billions of creatures have lived their lives through millions of years of evolution with these apparent flaws. Yet DNA_Jock implies that he could come up with something superior.

  39. CharlieM: Billions upon billions of creatures have lived their lives through millions of years of evolution with these apparent flaws. Yet DNA_Jock implies that he could come up with something superior.

    LOL. Well, the ‘old joke’ is rather mammalocentric, with its “running a sewer through a recreational area” punchline. For the vast majority of your vertebrates, the sewer is the recreational area, a.k.a. the cloaca. So I think we could all come up with something better.
    I did enjoy your bit about human blastulas being entirely somatic cells.
    I guess they all look the same to Charlie.
    As below, so above, indeed!

  40. CharlieM: DNA methylation and histone modification are processes of equal importance as copying DNA sequences into mRNA. DNA conformation is just as important as DNA sequence. The sequence remains the same whether or not a gene is expressed. The difference lies in the activity of the molecular complexes involved.

    Alan Fox: Sort of. Genes are switched on or off. And the switches are proteins. And the proteins are encoded in DNA.

    Here you borrow the term “switch” from electrical engineering. Gene expression is vastly more complex than is implied by the “switch” analogy. If we must use the switch analogy, the proteins you refer to are active switch operators rather than switches.

  41. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: DNA conformation is just as important as DNA sequence.

    Alan Fox: Not true for DNA that is encoding functional sequences.

    Functional sequences are of no use if they are not in a position where they can be acted upon to produce messenger RNA. Genes cannot be expressed if they cannot be accessed.

  42. Corneel:
    CharlieM: DNA conformation is just as important as DNA sequence.

    Corneel: Nope, because only the latter is stably inherited.

    Active complexes are inherited, cell membranes are inherited, mitochondria are inherited, cytoplasm is inherited. The “stable” DNA is there as a vital component to be used by the zygote. Mitosis is a consistent process carried over from parent to offspring. I would call this a dynamically stable process.

    DNA does not make body parts. The protein elements produced by gene expression are activated and combined into usable complexes which facilitate the growth of body parts. Very many processes combine in a coordinated manner in order to get from DNA to tissues and organs.

  43. CharlieM: Functional sequences are of no use if they are not in a position where they can be acted upon to produce messenger RNA. Genes cannot be expressed if they cannot be accessed.

    If genes are never expressed then they are not genes.

  44. CharlieM: Very many processes combine in a coordinated manner in order to get from DNA to tissues and organs.

    Last I checked we were discussing evolution, not physiology. Only heritable variation contributes to evolutionary change.The vast majority of heritable variation is the result of variation in DNA sequences, NOT due to variation in cell membranes or cytoplasmic factors. This is biology 101.

  45. DNA_Jock:
    CharlieM: Billions upon billions of creatures have lived their lives through millions of years of evolution with these apparent flaws. Yet DNA_Jock implies that he could come up with something superior.

    DNA_Jock: LOL. Well, the ‘old joke’ is rather mammalocentric, with its “running a sewer through a recreational area” punchline. For the vast majority of your vertebrates, the sewer is the recreational area, a.k.a. the cloaca. So I think we could all come up with something better.

    I think your confidence in your abilities are a bit on the optimistic side. Ignorance is bliss. 🙂

    Creation through sexual intercourse is on a basal level, creation through the Word is on an infinitely higher plane. To understand why at this time we have intercourse at the level of the “sewer” is to understand evolution and the potential of the future..

    DNA_Jock: I did enjoy your bit about human blastulas being entirely somatic cells.
    I guess they all look the same to Charlie.

    My use of the term “soma” for the blastula was intended to stimulate enquiring minds into asking the question: What is this body of ours? It It cannot be particular material substances because they are constantly passing through the body and being exchanged. Therefore it has more to do with form than substance. But it cannot be a static form because we are constantly changing. Bones grow, cartilage ossifies. Hair patterns change and neural pathways alter. Skin is shed and with time wrinkles form. From conception to death we are forever changing.

    The blastula is a whole functional body at a particular stage of development. If when asked what is a human, you have a picture of an adult man or woman in your mind, then your thinking is static. Dynamic thinking should see a human as consisting of all stages from zygote to deathbed.

    Life is not a collection of objects, it is a dynamic process.

    DNA_Jock: As below, so above, indeed!

    This is a fine example of the polarity between reductionist and holistic thinking.

    For the reductionist the whole is a collection of parts. For the holist the parts belong to the whole and cannot exist in isolation.

    A multitude of units or the unity of multiples.

  46. Corneel:
    CharlieM: Functional sequences are of no use if they are not in a position where they can be acted upon to produce messenger RNA. Genes cannot be expressed if they cannot be accessed.

    Corneel: If genes are never expressed then they are not genes.

    In that case the number of genes in various cell types varies and “silent genes” is a meaningless term.

  47. CharlieM: CharlieM: Functional sequences are of no use if they are not in a position where they can be acted upon to produce messenger RNA. Genes cannot be expressed if they cannot be accessed.

    Me: If genes are never expressed then they are not genes.

    Charlie: In that case the number of genes in various cell types varies and “silent genes” is a meaningless term.

    Just because the expression of genes is regulated does not mean that regulation is ‘just as important’ as the DNA sequence. In fact, most of the heritable variation in gene regulation is encoded … wait for it … in the DNA.

  48. Corneel:
    CharlieM: Very many processes combine in a coordinated manner in order to get from DNA to tissues and organs.

    Corneel: Last I checked we were discussing evolution, not physiology. Only heritable variation contributes to evolutionary change. The vast majority of heritable variation is the result of variation in DNA sequences, NOT due to variation in cell membranes or cytoplasmic factors. This is biology 101

    We are discussing evolution and development.

    Heritable variation is more to do with the way DNA is manipulated than gene sequences.

    Here they ask:

    Does more cellular complexity require more genes?

    And they answer:

    Experimental lessons on varying gene expression during development tell us “no.”

    Related animals use the same basic substances to grow and maintain their bodies and so they can use the same basic genes. Anatomical differences require the tissue building proteins to be produced individually to suit the type of creature.

    From the above link:

    Protein interrelationships drive the structure and function of cells, including how cells react to changes in temperature, nutrients, and stress.

    Thus, in a 2008 study, biologist Michael Stumpf and colleagues tried to determine just how large protein interaction networks were in different organisms (Stumpf et al., 2008). Using bioinformatics, the team estimated that 650,000 protein interactions occur in humans; this number is approximately three times more than that in the roundworm and 10 times more than that in the fruit fly. Moreover, it seems that a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions.

    Producing variety of animal forms takes more than a bit of tinkering with DNA.

Leave a Reply