The invention of tear ducts


Research Submarine Asherah

Designer was riding Her submarine through the depths of the ocean one day, taking stock of Her work, and decided, “I’ve learned just about everything I’m ever going to learn from these prototypes. It’s high time to take the next big step toward the ultimate goal, a species of animal in which to ripen souls for harvest.” (Of course, souls that turn out goatlike go to Hell, to suffer eternal torment at the hands of Satan, and souls that turn out sheeplike go to Heaven, to kowtow forever at the feet of God. But Designer had to come up with something considerably more sophisticated than sheep and goats, to satisfy God’s requirement that the Fate of Souls be contingent instead of determined.)

Now, if Designer had done a complete redesign, when advancing from aquatic to terrestrial organisms, Hell might well have frozen over before there were any goatlike souls to fuel the flames. So Designer said, “I know that the optics are different in air than in water, but fish eyes are gonna have to do.”Gray896
Lacrimal system
After observing that Her transitional prototype frequently took dips in the marsh to wash its eyes, She invented an organ to wet the eyes with saltwater. Compared to the eyes themselves, the lacrimal glands were a cinch to get right. As for eyelids, Designer had already tested them on some sharks. She did not anticipate that drainage would be a problem, but found that mammals with drops of water running down their faces looked very sad. In a flash of brilliance, Designer realized that eyewash could be reused to moisten the nostrils. And that was when She invented the lacrimal and naso-lacrimal ducts. What initially was supposed to be an aesthetic feature turned out to serve a useful function. God was highly impressed, and gave Designer, whom He called Asherah, a generous bonus at Christmas.

Ajrud

“Yahweh [front, flaunting large penis] and His Asherah [rear, working at computer]”

155 thoughts on “The invention of tear ducts

  1. Mung:
    I think you got it right the first time.

    😒

    Mung:
    Ontology Recapitulates Phylogeny

    😒

    Mung:
    Sounds like a good title for a forthcoming Nonlin or J-Mac post.

    😩

  2. Entropy:

    CharlieM:
    To see the world in a grain of sand, evolution in a tear duct

    This ending was beautiful.

    Don’t tell me, it was so beautiful you cried! 🙂

  3. phoodoo: But its even worse. Not only is it ONE DAY going to be super. Its super every step of the way. Because we never see, nor have any evidence of things that weren’t super, but instead were extremely sloppy and ill-conceived. Such things never seem to exist in our world.

    Heh, that’s just false I’m sorry to inform you. We see that often particularly at the molecular level. Enzymes are often times far from their reaction optimum, there are strange and illogical examples of molecular bricolage where developmental pathways no longer in use are inhibited by others.

    And then of course there are many species that exhibit niche-overlapping attributes, such as aquatic mammals like Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions etc.), or the platypus, several of which have limbs which are terrible for moving around on land, yet better for swimming though not quite as good as the flippers of fully aquatic mammals like whales.

  4. Rumraket (to Phoodoo): Heh, that’s just false I’m sorry to inform you. We see that often particularly at the molecular level. Enzymes are often times far from their reaction optimum, there are strange and illogical examples of molecular bricolage where developmental pathways no longer in use are inhibited by others.

    And then of course there are many species that exhibit niche-overlapping attributes, such as aquatic mammals like Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions etc.), or the platypus, several of which have limbs which are terrible for moving around on land, yet better for swimming though not quite as good as the flippers of fully aquatic mammals like whales.

    If you transposed the flippers of a seal and a whale, both would be useless. You cannot disregard the context of the whole organism when judging the merits of organs and structures. The flippers on a seal are very well suited to the lifestyle of the seal and it is likewise with the whale.

    And to expect life to operate with every process being at optimum efficiency or capacity is the result of a view which sees life as deterministic. But that is not how life actually is.
    Brian Goodwin sees life as a dance.

    My first contribution was to show that organisms are essentially rhythmic systems accounting for the universality of biological clocks. But I was interested in the spectrum of frequencies showing that control systems oscillate, they have rhythms, the whole organism is an integrated dynamic system that works on many different frequencies. This results in the notion of homeodynamics instead of homeostasis. Instead of having physiological variables that are constant, you have variables that are rhythmic: your temperature, concentrations of substances in the blood, your heartbeat, your respiration, circadian rhythms, menstrual cycles — what is now known as chronobiology. I didn’t invent the term, but I gave a strong impetus to the dynamic view of organisms as rhythmically organized entities…

    What I find remarkable is that the new paradigm is both mathematically more rigorous and fits the phenomena of biology better than neo-Darwinism, which leaves out development and organisms. We now have mathematical models that allow us to show how development occurs. Everybody acknowledges that evolution must include the evolution of development, because you don’t get organisms without their development. When you put that into evolution, the whole scene changes. You get a shift of perspective, because organisms become real entities again, living in their own space, so you suddenly recognize them as equivalent beings to yourself. Not just because we’re all the results of the same evolutionary process but because of their intrinsic values. The result is that you value nature the way you value works of art.

    Life can be either optimal and deterministic or flexible and creative. I see it as the latter. To judge an enzyme as optimum or a structure as bricolage is to freeze it in time and space. But we cannot do this with living systems, they are dynamic entities, ever changing in space and time. Every part of a living organism is working in a cooperative and coordinated way to maintain viability under ever changing circumstances. If the parts have to sacrifice perfection and efficiency in order for this to be maintained then that is what happens.

  5. phoodoo: Enzymes?Haha, are you joking?

    No I’m deadly serious, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. You said “Because we never see, nor have any evidence of things that weren’t super, but instead were extremely sloppy and ill-conceived. Such things never seem to exist in our world.”

    You are wrong.

  6. CharlieM:
    And to expect life to operate with every process being at optimum efficiency or capacity is the result of a view which sees life as deterministic. But that is not how life actually is.

    Tell it to phoodoo, who apparently has issues with the idea that there are things that aren’t the best possible or most optimal structure for what it is they are doing. Of course, the statement “weren’t super, but instead were extremely sloppy and ill-conceived” is rather subjective, so he can always just claim whatever examples are provided don’t meet the particular level of “not super” and “sloppy/ill conceived” he had in midn.

    Life can be either optimal and deterministic or flexible and creative. I see it as the latter.

    And yet you say the seal’s limbs are optimal for it’s lifestyle, so which one is it? I think you’re just blathering.

    A To judge an enzyme as optimum or a structure as bricolage is to freeze it in time and space. But we cannot do this with living systems, they are dynamic entities, ever changing in space and time.

    Ahh, another vacuous deepity.

    Every part of a living organism is working in a cooperative and coordinated way to maintain viability under ever changing circumstances.

    Uhm, no. There are countless examples of physiological characteristics that are at best neutral byproducts of development, when they’re not outright historical detritus with no adaptive or essential function. Take the ability some people have to wiggle their ears. What’s it for? Nothing. Does it help you survive? Not at all. Why’s it there? A historical byproduct of a time when our mammalian ancestors could move their ears to face the direction of sound. Unsurpringsly many people can’t even activate those muscles as they have never seen any direct use in their lives.

    Pick any single birth mark on yourself. Does it work in a cooperative and coordinated way to maintain viability under ever changing circumstances? No. One could go on and on.

    If the parts have to sacrifice perfection and efficiency in order for this to be maintained then that is what happens.

    Nothing would be sacrificed by particular enzymes catalyzing reactions at or above the rate at which the substrate can diffuse to the active site. Yet many of them work below that level.

  7. Rumraket: phoodoo: Enzymes?Haha, are you joking?

    No I’m deadly serious, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. You said “Because we never see, nor have any evidence of things that weren’t super, but instead were extremely sloppy and ill-conceived. Such things never seem to exist in our world.”

    You are wrong.

    Some enzymes are just so uncoordinated! Did you ever watch an enzyme trying to do a swan dive? What a joke!

  8. phoodoo: Some enzymes are just so uncoordinated! Did you ever watch an enzyme trying to do a swan dive? What a joke!

    So you have no substantive reply? Okay.

  9. Rumraket: Take the ability some people have to wiggle their ears. What’s it for? Nothing. Does it help you survive? Not at all.

    What are you talking about, of course it does. First, being able to wiggle your ears is a sign of good health, so its sexually selected for.

    Second, in the savanna, where flies and mosquitoes were a huge problem when we were hunter gatherers, they worked like a live scarecrow, warding off insects.

    Thirdly, the best ear wigglers were great at story-telling. By moving their ears at the right times during a story, they could induce a slight smile from their listeners, which would increase their status in the tribe. Its still an aphrodisiac to many people to this day. Its just like sneezing.

    And that’s how the leopard got its spots.

  10. phoodoo: What are you talking about, of course it does. First, being able to wiggle your ears is a sign of good health, so its sexually selected for.

    Second, in the savanna, where flies and mosquitoes were a huge problem when we were hunter gatherers, they worked like a live scarecrow, warding off insects.

    Thirdly, the best ear wigglers were great at story-telling. By moving their ears at the right times during a story, they could induce a slight smile from their listeners, which would increase their status in the tribe. Its still an aphrodisiac to many people to this day. Its just like sneezing.

    And that’s how the leopard got its spots.

    That’s beautiful. Too bad this explanation does not fly.

    The trait is polymorphic, not fixed. If it were adaptive, everybody would be able to wiggle their ears.

  11. Corneel: If it were adaptive, everybody would be able to wiggle their ears.

    All aspects of life that are adaptive are possessed by everyone? That’s interesting.

  12. phoodoo: Some enzymes are just so uncoordinated!Did you ever watch an enzyme trying to do a swan dive?What a joke!

    That must be among the most idiotic responses I’ve seen. It would be much better if you just said you don’t know what enzymes are or do.

    Do you think that kind of “thinking” reflects well on the quality and reasoning behind your position regarding magical beings in the sky?

  13. Rumraket:

    CharlieM: Life can be either optimal and deterministic or flexible and creative. I see it as the latter.

    And yet you say the seal’s limbs are optimal for it’s lifestyle, so which one is it? I think you’re just blathering.

    What I actually said was that they are well suited to its lifestyle. They could possibly be more optimal if they were not based on the general plan of the pentadactyl limb.

    CharlieM: To judge an enzyme as optimum or a structure as bricolage is to freeze it in time and space. But we cannot do this with living systems, they are dynamic entities, ever changing in space and time.

    Ahh, another vacuous deepity.

    You might as well say that to judge a performance of ‘Swan Lake’ on its dynamics on the stage is vacuous. Maybe you believe that it should be judged on a still photograph of the performance? Or are you saying that an organism is not a dynamic system?

  14. Corneel (to Phoodoo): The trait is polymorphic, not fixed. If it were adaptive, everybody would be able to wiggle their ears.

    Everyone has the muscles and so the potential to wiggle their ears. We have lost the ability to wiggle them instinctively, but we can learn to do it consciously. It is just a matter of making the connection and that takes concentration and practice.

  15. CharlieM: Everyone has the muscles and so the potential to wiggle their ears. We have lost the ability to wiggle them instinctively, but we can learn to do it consciously. It is just a matter of making the connection and that takes concentration and practice.

    And we use our consciousness to apprehend the archetype of wiggling ears through our thinking, to restore the lost connections of our ear muscles with the higher dimension. Just make sure you don’t get distracted while doing it or you might end up developing squirrel ears.

  16. Astonishing discovery: Evidence of a weird creature’s transubstantiation from it’s archetype arises. It’s believed to be almost sentient.

  17. Is it me or some people just can’t help it but to refer to sexual organs or sexuality whenever they have a chance? Every time I read and see an OP like this it makes me wonder: “Why”?
    Why some people can’t help it? Is sex and sexual organs their main preoccupation?
    I’ve studied some of the ancient history and apparently, at one time in the Roman Empire, possibly under Caligula and others, the sculptures of human genitals were erected and venerated…

    Why?

  18. J-Mac: I’ve studied some of the ancient history and apparently, at one time in the Roman Empire, possibly under Caligula and others, the sculptures of human genitals were erected and venerated…

    Why?

    Because they pointed at god

  19. J-Mac: Is it me or some people just can’t help it but to refer to sexual organs or sexuality whenever they have a chance? Every time I read and see an OP like this it makes me wonder: “Why”?
    Why some people can’t help it? Is sex and sexual organs their main preoccupation?

    Why is Muttley the sneering cur that he is? I think he’s animated by deep envy of Dastardly’s Dick. How about you?

    P.S.–Wasn’t it you who recently called on denizens of the Zone to make public declarations of sexual orientation?

  20. Tom English:
    P.S.–Wasn’t it you who recently called on denizens of the Zone to make public declarations of sexual orientation?

    Wasn’t J-Mac the first to mention the sexual organs in the OP’s illustration? J-Mac seems rather prone to projection.

  21. phoodoo: All aspects of life that are adaptive are possessed by everyone? That’s interesting.

    There are bound to be exceptions, but I always found it useful ask this question of anyone that comes up with a just-so story for a trait that hasn’t fixed yet in the population.

    I don’t see why you should get a pass on that 🙂

  22. CharlieM: Everyone has the muscles and so the potential to wiggle their ears. We have lost the ability to wiggle them instinctively, but we can learn to do it consciously. It is just a matter of making the connection and that takes concentration and practice.

    Please tell me that you practice wiggling your ears every night.

    Otherwise: there is still variation in people’s ability to wiggle their ears, no?

  23. Corneel: There are bound to be exceptions, but I always found it useful ask this question of anyone that comes up with a just-so story for a trait that hasn’t fixed yet in the population.

    I don’t see why you should get a pass on that

    In evolutionary speak, how could one ever determine if something is an adaptive trait? If it is an example of fitness? Because the definition of fitness, as much as your side likes to wobble, and hem and haw, inevitably comes down to that which exists.

    So trying to claim, one trait is adaptive and one is not is just a convenient personal preference.

  24. phoodoo: So, you are conjecturing that each of these steps, random as they were, just so happened to confer some kind of advantage?

    Let’s be clear that I have not given an evolutionary account of the tear ducts. I made up a story that merely resembles some evolutionary accounts that are backed up by good evidence. Furthermore, the story I made up runs contrary to the little bit of information I’d gleaned on tear ducts. My purpose was purely to get your response to “what if?” questions. I considered bringing up the evolution of the mammalian auditory ossicles, and wish now that I’d done that instead.

    With apologies, I’m going to back out of what I started. I have tried to find a way of continuing, without making too big a mess of things, and have failed. Discussing a hypothetical account is simply the wrong way to go.

    phoodoo: Or are you saying these effects were simply neutral, but just so happen to spread anyway for no reason at all. But THEN, it worked out perfectly that they turned into tear ducts , which WERE very useful? And if you didn’t have that tear duct, well, of course you would be out-competed for reproduction?

    The point I really wanted to convey is this: disadvantageous traits can be side effects of adaptation, creating the opportunity for — which is not to say the necessity of — subsequent adaptations that make the side effects less disadvantageous, or even advantageous. So there is not a requirement, in an evolutionary account of a structure, that it and all of its precursors have been advantageous. Nor do we have to invoke drift.

    I’ll mention also that vestigiality is not all-or-nothing. From what I’ve read, the lacrimal ducts have important functions in some species that they do not have in humans. You cannot look at the present function of a structure, and say that it did not have additional functions, earlier in the lineage. Earlier functions may have contributed more to survival and reproduction than the presently observed function does.

    (I cannot make a good argument for this claim, but I suspect that the lacrimal ducts of humans are quasi-vestigial. What will cause a person problems is the inability to produce tears. As far as I know, the inability to drain tears down your nostrils, instead of down the outside edges of your nose, is no big deal. In humans, tearing is under parasympathetic nervous control. That suggests to me that our species could regulate wetting of the eyes in the absence of a drainage system. But this is merely speculation. And there’s no reason you should care what I speculate. Isn’t all of evolutionary theory speculation? No, that’s just what you always try to make of it.)

    When you say “worked out perfectly,” it seems as though you are thinking that there’s some sort of preexisting ideal of a tear duct, waiting to be realized. Let’s translate that into IDdish: there’s a specified target to be hit, and blind evolution just happened to hit it. Well, that’s not what biologists are saying. And you ought to know that by now.

    The fact of the matter is that no one would ever imagine running drains from the eyes into the nostrils. We know about tear ducts only because they are bizarre features of nature that we have observed. Only when preparing to write the OP did I learn how the tear ducts work, and what they look like. It seemed that you, in another thread, were writing “tear ducts” when you actually meant the tear glands. I’d have made the same mistake. And I see, googling, that lots of people have made the same mistake. So, we’ve at least gained from this exchange an understanding of the difference of tear glands and tear ducts — right?

  25. Corneel: Please tell me that you practice wiggling your ears every night.

    Otherwise: there is still variation in people’s ability to wiggle their ears, no?

    And there is variation in people’s speed. And their strength. And their intelligence. Does that mean none of that is adaptive?

  26. phoodoo: Because the definition of fitness, as much as your side likes to wobble, and hem and haw, inevitably comes down to that which exists.

    Fucksake phoodoo, this again? No, existence is not a test of higher fitness.

  27. Tom English,

    Well, there’s a lot to say here, but its probably best you didn’t choose the evolution of auditory ossicles as a different case study in just so stories. But since you referenced the beacon of academic integrity, Wikipedia (sort of the skeptics guide to internet propaganda), let’s look at their rather amusing guerilla skeptic spin:

    The event is well-documented[1] and important[2][3] as a demonstration of transitional forms and exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.[4]

    Over the course of the evolution of mammals, one bone from the lower and one from the upper jaw (the articular and quadrate bones) lost their purpose in the jaw joint and were put to new use in the middle ear, connecting to the existing stapes bone and forming a chain of three bones, the ossicles, which transmit sounds more efficiently and allow more acute hearing. In mammals, these three bones are known as the malleus, incus, and stapes (hammer, anvil, and stirrup respectively). Mammals and birds also differ from other vertebrates by having evolved a cochlea.

    Well, the bones first lost their purpose now did they? Hm, I wonder why? And that’s well documented that this is what happened? Interesting. Let’s continue:

    The earliest mammals were generally small animals, probably nocturnal insectivores. This suggests a plausible evolutionary mechanism driving the change; for with these small bones in the middle ear, a mammal has extended its range of hearing for higher-pitched sounds which would improve the detection of insects in the dark.[23] Natural selection would account for the success of this feature.

    There is still one more connection with another part of biology: genetics suggests a mechanism for this transition, the kind of major change of function seen elsewhere in the world of life being studied by evolutionary developmental biology.[8]

    Ignoring the fact that the last paragraph is almost a complete non-sequitor, what does it mean that because better hearing would be beneficial for small mammals in the dark, that this is a mechanism for how it came to be?

    And then it goes on to make one assumption after another, because, well, that’s called science in the world of biology.

    The lack of a real explanation for a “mechanism”, well, that is the magician saying ‘look at this wand”, while he pulls a rabbit out of his pocket with the other hand.

  28. dazz:
    Astonishing discovery: Evidence of a weird creature’s transubstantiation from it’s archetype arises. It’s believed to be almost sentient.

    Not so much ‘The face of a frog’ as ‘The face of a slug’ 🙂 I suspect the orange hue is a trick of the light.

  29. Corneel: Please tell me that you practice wiggling your ears every night.

    Otherwise: there is still variation in people’s ability to wiggle their ears, no?

    No but when I was a kid I was intrigued that my father could wiggle his ears and raise his eyebrows individually. I preferred the eyebrow raising, so I practised that. After a good while I found the muscle that controls one eyebrow and exercised it until I could raise it with ease. Now it isn’t an adaptive trait, but my wife has always liked when I did it, so how much did it contribute to us getting married and producing descendants I don’t know, but every little helps. 🙂

  30. phoodoo: And there is variation in people’s speed. And their strength. And their intelligence. Does that mean none of that is adaptive?

    I’d say that is an excellent starting assumption, yes. But feel free to prove me wrong. Show me that standing heritable variation in speed among human subjects is correlated with reproductive success, or that strength is, or intelligence.

  31. Corneel: Show me that standing heritable variation in speed among human subjects is correlated with reproductive success, or that strength is, or intelligence.

    Show me its correlated with success in any animal?

    I think we agree.

  32. Corneel,

    I think the only variable you can say is correlated with success is luck.

    I am not sure if that is heritable or not, however.

  33. CharlieM: No but when I was a kid I was intrigued that my father could wiggle his ears and raise his eyebrows individually. I preferred the eyebrow raising, so I practised that. After a good while I found the muscle that controls one eyebrow and exercised it until I could raise it with ease. Now it isn’t an adaptive trait, but my wife has always liked when I did it, so how much did it contribute to us getting married and producing descendants I don’t know, but every little helps. 🙂

    Raising one eyebrow is sexy.

  34. phoodoo: Fitness is existence. Its binary.
    Phoodoo November 3, 2018 at 2:30 pm

    [This article may require cleanup to meet our quality standards.]

  35. Corneel: I’d say that is an excellent starting assumption, yes. But feel free to prove me wrong. Show me that standing heritable variation in speed among human subjects is correlated with reproductive success, or that strength is, or intelligence.

    I worry you are going to give Allan a heart attack with this kind of talk.

  36. phoodoo: Show me its correlated with success in any animal?

    I think we agree.

    Not as easy as it sounds. It is an established fact that traits that experience strong directional selection tend to have little heritable variation. I predict that for any animal where you can demonstrate that speed, strength or intelligence are important fitness traits, you will find little heritable variation for it.

    phoodoo: I think the only variable you can say is correlated with success is luck.

    I am not sure if that is heritable or not, however.

    Please! As if life is not unfair enough as it is.

  37. CharlieM: Tom English makes a good point here. To which I will add: The parts become ever more specialised as it develops but the organism remains a fully functional whole throughout development. Organs form and develop in preparation for when they are needed during development. And the more that tissues become specialised the harder it is for them to change and adapt to a new function.

    Here Tom distances himself from recapitulation theory, but admits that there is a connection between individual development and evolution.

    And here Entropy writes:

    Several specialized glands start their development as if they’re one more of a very common gland, staring from the very same kind of tissue, developing as if they’re that other thing, until they start taking another turn in their development. Some very common glands start their development as if they’re but the tissue they’re immersed in, which starts folding and instead of, say, scaling they start making a duct, etc.

    What we see is the general form radiating into specialist forms. It happens in the formation of tear ducts, in the formation of limbs as Rumraket has already stated, in the branching of species, and throughout the evolution of life as a whole.
    This pattern repeats at all levels, the whole is repeated in the parts. There is much wisdom in the phrase, “as above, so below.”

    We know and can see the direction inherent in individual development because the time frame allows us to see examples of the whole process, the birth, development, maturity and death of individual organisms. It is more difficult to see the direction inherent in the process of evolution because from our limited existence we do not get the same clear picture of the whole process.

    But if we take the whole to be reflected in the parts as genuine, as I do, then the evolution of life on earth is in the midst of undergoing the same process of birth, development, maturity and death. As Tom wrote, “we do witness an evolutionary process in embryogenesis.”

    To see the world in a grain of sand, evolution in a tear duct

    Charlie, I have to give you credit here for a well-thought-out and articulate comment. I don’t see the sublime plan that you’re seeing in embryogenesis — for instance, the non-bony part of the tails that humans grow as embryos simply dies (when things go right), rather than turns into something else — and I of course do not see any directedness in evolution of lineages, apart from that of natural selection. But what you’re saying is sane, and even poetic. Most importantly, it strikes me as an honest expression of your belief.

    I don’t know how to fault people who believe, on faith, that natural selection is actually divine guidance of the course of nature. However, arguments that science actually favors belief in invisible guidance of evolution are not a matter of faith. They reveal a failure of faith.

    I need to say from time to time that what animates me in my opposition to ID is not opposition to religion, but instead opposition to attempts to insinuate religious beliefs into public science education. Growing up Southern Baptist, in the Sixties and early Seventies, I was taught that the two-way wall of separation of church and state was the best guarantor of religious freedom for all. I was not taught to see it as an application of the Golden Rule, but I always saw it that way, and continue to see it that way today. Christians ought, if they believe what they say that they believe, to recognize that they should not press their majoritarian religious beliefs on minorities, even as they recognize that they would not want to have majoritarian religious beliefs pressed on them and their children, were they in the minority.

  38. Corneel: I predict that for any animal where you can demonstrate that speed, strength or intelligence are important fitness traits, you will find little heritable variation for it.

    How could you ever demonstrate that? That is the point. You can’t.

    And this is why, instead, all evolution theory can ever say is, it exists, therefore its beneficial. Its why fitness is a meaningless concept. I have been saying this all along. You are just emphasizing why I am correct.

Leave a Reply