When I was in London last month, Richard Dawkins and I had a public conversation sponsored by the British Humanist Association, and now you can watch it wherever.
And here’s the Q&A:
One of the advantages of being an old geezer is that I remember watching this kind of thing as it was happening, and having to keep the television on all day and all night to catch the latest news from the Moon. You young whippersnappers just get it handed to you at your convenience on this youtube thingie.
It was awesome then, and it’s awesome now.
(via Carl Zimmer)
I found a recent paper in Nature fascinating, but why is hard to describe — you need to understand a fair amount of general molecular biology and development to see what’s interesting about it. So those of you who already do may be a little bored with this explanation, because I’ve got to build it up slowly and hope I don’t lose everyone else along the way. Patience! If you’re a real smartie-pants, just jump ahead and read the original paper in Nature.
A little general background.
Let’s begin with an abstract map of a small piece of a strand of DNA. This is a region of fly DNA that encodes a gene called svb/ovo (I’ll explain what that is in a moment). In this map, the transcribed portions of the DNA are shown as gray shaded blocks; what that means is that an enzyme called polymerase will bind to the DNA at the start of those blocks and make a copy in the form of RNA, which will then enter the cytoplasm of the cell and be translated into a protein, which does some work in the activities of that cell. So svb/ovo is a small piece of DNA which, in the normal course of events, will make a protein.
Most of the DNA here is not transcribed. Much of it is junk — changing the sequence of those areas has no effect on the protein, and has no effect on the appearance or function of the organism. Some of it, though, is regulatory DNA, and its sequence does matter. The white boxes labeled DG2, DG3, Z, A, E, and 7 are regions called enhancers — they are not translated into protein, but their sequence affects the expression of svb/ovo. One way to think of them is that they are small parking spots for other proteins that will bind to the DNA sequences in each enhancer. These protein/DNA complexes will then fold around to make a little landing zone for the polymerase, to encourage transcription of the svb/ovo gene. This is why this is called regulatory DNA: it doesn’t actually make the svb/ovo protein itself, but it’s important in controlling when and where and how much of the svb/ovo protein will be made.
Now for some jargon; sorry, but you have to know what it is to follow along in the literature. Those little white boxes of regulatory DNA are often called cis factors, because they have to be located on the same strand of DNA as the protein-coding gene in order to work. In general, when we’re talking about cis factors, we’re talking about non-coding regulatory DNA. The complement of that is the actual coding sequence, the little gray boxes in the diagram, and those have the general name of trans factors.
There is a bit of a debate going on about the relative importance of cis and trans mutations in evolution. Proponents of the cis perspective like to point out that cis mutations can be wonderfully subtle and specific; you can make a change in an enhancer and only modify the expression of the gene in one tissue, or even a small part of one tissue, while changing a trans factor causes changes in every tissue that uses that gene product. Also, most of the cis proponents are evo-devo people, scientists who study the small variations in timing and magnitude of gene expression that lead to differences in form, so of course the kinds of changes that affect the stuff we study must be the most important.
Proponents of the trans view can point out that small changes in the coding regions of genes can also produce subtle shifts in what the genes do, and that mutations can also produce very large effects. Those cis changes appear to be little tweaks, while trans changes can run the gamut from non-existent/weak to strong, and so have great power. They also like to point out that most of the data in the literature documents trans changes between species, and that a lot of the evo-devo stuff is speculative.
It’s a somewhat silly debate, because we all know that both cis and trans effects are going to be found important in evolution, in different ways in different organisms, and that arguing about which is more important is kind of pointless — it will depend on which feature and which species you’re looking at. But the debate is also useful as a goad to urge people to look more at the subtleties and ask more questions about those enhancers, as in the paper I’m about to describe.
What is this svb/ovo gene?
This is a drawing of just the back end of a fly larva, and what you should be able to see is that they’re very hairy. Dorsally, there’s a collection of small hairs called trichomes, and ventrally there are some thicker, stouter hairs called denticles. If you destroy the svb/ovo coding region, these hairs don’t form — svb is an important gene for organizing and making hairs on the cuticle of the fly. It’s name should make sense: svb is short for shavenbaby. The gene is responsible for making hairs, but when you break it with a mutation you get embryos and larvae lacking those hairs, a shaven baby.
It also has the synonym of ovo, because it has another important function in the maturation of oocytes, something I’ll skip over entirely. All you need to know is that svb/ovo is actually a large complex gene with multiple functions, and all we care about right now is its function of inducing hair development.
Now let’s look at embryos of two different species of fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster at the top, and Drosophila sechellia at the bottom. D. melanogaster is clearly hairier than D. sechellia, and you might be wondering if svb is the gene making a difference here, and if you’re following the debate, you might be wondering whether this is a change in the trans coding region or the cis regulatory region.
One way to figure this out is to sequence and compare maps of the svb region in multiple fly species and ask where the actual molecular differences are. This isn’t trivial: D. melanogaster and D. sechellia have been diverging for half a million years, and there have been lots of little changes all over the place, many of them expected to be neutral. What was done to narrow the search was to compare the sequences of five different Drosophila species with hairy embryos to the relatively naked D. sechellia, and ask which changes were unique to the less hairy form.
A hotspot lit up in the comparison: there is one region, about 500 base pairs long, in the enhancer labeled “E” in the diagram at the top of the page, which contained 13 substitutions and one deletion unique to D. sechellia, in 7 clusters. This is very suggestive, but not definitive; these are consistent differences, but we don’t know yet whether these molecular differences cause the differences in hairiness. For that, we need an experiment.
The experiment.
This is the cool part. The investigators built constructs containing the E enhancer coupled to the svb gene and a reporter tag, and inserted those into fly embryos and asked how they affected expression; so they could effectively put the D. sechellia enhancer into D. melanogaster, and the D. melanogaster enhancer into D. sechellia, and ask if they were sufficient to drive the species-specific pattern of svb expression. The answer is yes, mostly: they weren’t perfect copies of each other, suggesting that there are other elements that contribute to the pattern, but the D. sechellia enhancer produced reduced expression in whatever fly carried it, while the D. melanogaster enhancer produced greater expression.
But wait, there’s more! The species differences were caused by differences in 7 clusters within the E enhancer. The authors built constructs in which the mutations in each of the 7 clusters was uniquely and independently inserted, so they could test each mutational change one by one. The answer here was that each of the seven mutations that led to the D. sechellia pattern had a similar effect, reducing very slightly the level of svb expression. Furthermore, they had a synergistic effect: the reduction in hairs when all 7 mutations were present was not simply the sum of the individual effects of each mutation alone.
What does it all mean?
One conclusion of this work is that here is one more clear example of a significant morphological difference between species that was generated by molecular modification of cis regulatory elements. Hooray, one more data point in the cis/trans debate!
Another interesting observation is that this is a phenotype that was built up gradually, by a set of small changes to an enhancer element. D. sechellia gradually lost its trichome hairs by the accumulation of single-nucleotide changes in regulatory DNA, each of which contributed to the phenotype — a very Darwinian pattern of change.
By modifying the regulatory elements, evolution can generate distinct, focused variations. Knocking out the entirety of the svb gene is disastrous, not only removing hairs but also seriously affecting fertility. The little tweaks provided by changes to the enhancer region mean that morphology can be fine-tuned by chance and selection, without compromising essential functions like reproduction. In the case of these two species of flies, D. sechellia can have a functional reproductive system, the full machinery to make functional hairs, but at the same time can turn off dorsal trichomes while retaining ventral denticles.
It all fits with the idea that fundamental aspects of basic morphology are going to be defined, not by the raw materials used to build them, but by the regulation of timing and quantity of those gene products — that the rules of development are defined by the regulatory activity of genes, not entirely by the coding sequences themselves.
Frankel N, Erezyilmaz DF, McGregor AP, Wang S, Payre F, Stern DL (2011) Morphological evolution caused by many subtle-effect substitutions in regulatory DNA. Nature 474(7353):598-603.
Phil Senter has published the most deviously underhanded, sneaky, subtle undermining of the creationist position I’ve ever seen, and I applaud him for it. What he did was to take them seriously, something I could never do, and treat their various publications that ape the form of the scientific literature as if they actually were real science papers, and apply their methods consistently to an analysis of taxonomy. So on the one hand, it’s bizarre and disturbing to see the like of Ken Ham, Jerry Bergman, and Henry Morris get actual scientific citations, but on the other hand, seeing their claims refuted using their own touted methods is peculiarly satisfying.
Senter has published a paper in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology that takes their claims at face value and analyzes dinosaur morphology using their own methods. ‘Baraminologists’ have published a set of taxonomic tools that use as input a matrix of morphological characters for an array of animals, and then spits out numbers that tell whether they were similar enough to be related. You can guess what the motivation for that is: they want to claim that Noah didn’t have to carry representatives of every dinosaur species on the Ark, but only representatives of each ‘kind’, which then diversified rapidly after the big boat landed to generate all the different species found in the fossil record.
The problem for them is that Senter found that it works far too well. Using creationist techniques, all of the Dinosauria reduce to…eight kinds. That makes the boat haulage problem relatively even easier.
Here is the summary diagram, illustrating the derived creationist tree of common descent. Oops.
At first, the results of the taxon correlation analyses appear to imply good news for the creationist world view, on several fronts. First, seven major dinosaurian groups (birdlike coelurosaurs, Tazoudasaurus + Eusauropoda, Stegosauria, Ankylosauridae, Neoceratopsia, Hadrosauridae and basal Hadrosauriformes) are separated from the rest of Dinosauria by morphological gaps (Fig. 15). Creationist inferences that variety within Eusauropoda (Morris, 1999) and Ceratopsidae (Ham, 2009) represent diversification within separately created kinds are congruent with these results. Second, each morphologically continuous group found by taxon correlation includes at least some herbivores. This is congruent with the creationist assertion that all carnivorous animals are descendants of originally herbivorous ancestors (Unfred, 1990; Gish, 1992; Ham, 1998, 2006, 2009; Larsen, 2001; McIntosh & Hodge, 2006). Third, although creationists have answered the problem of room on Noah’s ark for multiple pairs of gigantic dinosaurs by asserting that only about 50 ‘created kinds’ of dinosaurs existed (Ham, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2009; Morris, 1999), the problem is solved even better by the results of this study, in which only eight dinosaur ‘kinds’ are found.
Awww. I guess I’m going to have to become a creationist, now that the evidence shows that dinosaurs are related by common descent…oh, hey, wait. Isn’t that what evolution says? And isn’t that easier to accommodate within the idea that they did this over millions of years, rather than the freakishly unrealistic hyper-speciation within a few thousand years that the creationists insist on?
However, a second look reveals that these results are at odds with the creationist view. Whether there were eight dinosaur ‘kinds’ or 50, the diversity within each ‘kind’ is enormous. Acceptance that such diversity arose by natural means in only a few thousand years therefore stretches the imagination. The largest dinosaurian baramin recovered by this study includes Euparkeria, basal ornithodirans (Silesaurus and Marasuchus), basal saurischians, basal ornithischians, basal sauropodomorphs, basal thyreophorans, nodosaurid ankylosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, basal ceratopsians, basal ornithopods and all but the most birdlike theropods in an unbroken spectrum of morphological continuity. The creationist viewpoint allows for diversification within baramins, but the diversity within this morphologically continuous group is extreme. Also, the inclusion of the Middle Triassic non-dinosaurs Euparkeria and Marasuchus within the group is at odds with the creationist claim that fossil representatives of the predinosaurian, ancestral stock from which dinosaurs arose have never been found (DeYoung, 2000; Ham, 2006; Bergman, 2009).
So, effectively, these results, made using the creationists own tools, demonstrate a genetic relationship between a diverse group of animals that evolution predicted, and confronts young earth creationists with the problem of a kind of frantically prolific speciation that is unimaginably rapid. If species are that fluid and can change that rapidly, their own claims of fixity of species are patently wrong.
The final word:
The results of this study indicate that transitional fossils linking at least four major dinosaurian groups to the rest of Dinosauria are yet to be found. Possibly, some creationist authors will hail this finding as evidence of special creation for those four groups. However, such enthusiasm should be tempered by the finding here that the rest of Dinosauria–including basal members of all major lineages–are joined in a continuous morphological spectrum. This confirms the genetic relatedness of a very broad taxonomic collection of animals, as evolutionary theory predicts, ironically by means of a measure endorsed and used by creation science.
This is so wonderfully, evilly devious. Superficially, it seems to support creationist methods—but what it actually is is a grand reductio ad absurdam. Laugh wickedly at it now, but laugh even harder when you see creationists citing this paper in the future, as you know they will.
Senter P (2011) Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria. J Evol Biol. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x.
I got a letter from a creationist today, claiming that “Darwinism is falsified,” based on an article in Nature. It’s kind of amazing; this article was just published today, and the metaphorical digital ink on it is barely metaphorically dry, and creationists are already busily mangling it.
It’s a good article describing some recent fossil discoveries, found in a 515 million year old deposit in South Australia. Matthew Cobb has already summarized the paper, so I’ll be brief on the details, but it’s very cool. What was found was a collection of arthropod eye impressions, probably from cast-off molts. No sign of the bodies of these animals was found, suggesting that perhaps they were not fully sclerotized, or as the authors suggest, that disarticulated eyes were more prone to rapid phosphatization than eyes attached to a decaying body. There is no evidence of biomineralization, so these were animals with a very light armor of chitin alone.
What’s wonderful about the eyes is that they are relatively large and contain numerous ommatidia, the individual facets of a compound eye. They have over 3,000 lenses, and there’s also evidence of regional specialization in the eye. These were highly visual animals that were capable of forming a good image of the world around them.
These eyes are also from the early Cambrian, so they appeared in the early stages of large animal evolution. The closest thing to them in ommatidial number are the sophisticated eyes of many trilobites, but even there, these eyes were early and relatively large.
Where in this is the refutation of evolution? I don’t know. But I did receive a letter from that Canadian idiot, David Buckna, crowing about it, and linking to his very silly creationist article describing it, in which you’ll find the abstract for the paper with curious random spastic boldfacing added which supposedly highlight the parts of the story that contradict evolutionary theory, words like “complexity” and “Cambrian explosion” and “more complex” and “great evolutionary event”. It’s a bit bizarre and like looking at the obsessive activity of a squirrel gathering nuts.
Here’s the creationist summary of the paper, however.
The Cambrian explosion is affirmed; complexity appears suddenly without transitions; Darwinism is falsified; the inference to the best explanation is intelligent design. Let the world know.
Let’s deal with each of these claims one by one.
The “Cambrian explosion” is a term coined by scientists to describe the rapid (in geological terms) appearance of large, complex animals with hard skeletons over the course of a few million years roughly half a billion years ago. There is no creationist gotcha in pointing out the existence of this geological period; scientists have written whole books on the subject.
The sudden appearance of complexity is no surprise, either. We know that the fundamental mechanisms of eye function evolved long before the Cambrian, from the molecular evidence; what happened here was not that, poof, eyes instantly evolved, but that the evolution of body armor gradually increased from the pre-Cambrian through the Cambrian, making the organization of eyes visible in the fossil record.
It is also the case that the measure of complexity here is determined by a simple meristic trait, the number of ommatidia. This is not radical. The hard part in the evolution of the compound eye was the development of the signal transduction mechanism, followed by the developmental rules that governed the formation of a regular, repeating structure of the eye. The number of ommatidia is a reflection of the degree of commitment of tissues in the head to eye formation, and is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
And finally, there’s nothing in the data from this paper that implies sudden origins; there can’t be. If it takes a few hundred thousand years for a complex eye to evolve from a simple light sensing organ, there is no way to determine that one sample of a set of fossils was the product of millions of years of evolution, or one day of magical creation. It’s a logical error and a failure of the imagination to assume that these descriptions are of a population that spontaneously emerged nearly-instantaneously.
“Darwinism” is not falsified. Darwin himself explained in great detail how one should not expect fine-grained fossil series, due to the imperfection of the geological record. Creatonists, read chapter 9 of the Origin; here’s a brief excerpt.
It should not be forgotten, that at the present day, with perfect specimens for examination, two forms can seldom be connected by intermediate varieties and thus proved to be the same species, until many specimens have been collected from many places; and in the case of fossil species this could rarely be effected by palaeontologists. We shall, perhaps, best perceive the improbability of our being enabled to connect species by numerous, fine, intermediate, fossil links, by asking ourselves whether, for instance, geologists at some future period will be able to prove, that our different breeds of cattle, sheep, horses, and dogs have descended from a single stock or from several aboriginal stocks; or, again, whether certain sea-shells inhabiting the shores of North America, which are ranked by some conchologists as distinct species from their European representatives, and by other conchologists as only varieties, are really varieties or are, as it is called, specifically distinct. This could be effected only by the future geologist discovering in a fossil state numerous intermediate gradations; and such success seems to me improbable in the highest degree.
Finding a fossil eye with numerous ommatidia a hundred million years after molecular biology tells us that eyes evolved does not in any way falsify the idea of a gradual evolution of the eye.
Given that there is nothing in this story that contradicts the idea of a natural process generating increasing complexity over time, and given that it’s an observation that fits perfectly comfortably within the body of evolutionary theory, there is no reason to leap the utterly unfounded conclusion that an invisible spirit zapped these fossils into existence — an invisible spirit for which there is no evidence. Furthermore, what evidence is in this paper directly contradicts Buckna’s beliefs: he is a young earth creationist, and this is a paper describing organisms that lived 515 million years ago. If you look at the chart I reproduced above, you might also notice that the pattern of complexity (ommatidial numbers) in trilobites shows a trend of increase over 80 million years.
I shall gladly let the world know that David Buckna is an irrational fool who doesn’t know how to read a scientific paper and makes illogical leaps in his arguments.
Lee MSY,
Jago JB,
GarcÃa-Bellido DC,
Edgecombe GD,
Gehling JG
Paterson JR (2011) Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia. Nature 474: 631-634.
Harry Lonsdale is a godless Oregonian who has just offered a $50,000 prize plus $2,000,000 in funding for research into the origins of life.
A millionaire scientist who once ran as a Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate has just launched a $50,000 prize to promote research on the origin of life. Yes, he has an ulterior motive: He hopes that researchers working on the question will eventually prove that life’s origins can be fully explained by physical and chemical processes, without invoking a creator.
Harry Lonsdale is a chemist in Bend, Oregon, who made a fortune when he sold his drug development and research company to Pfizer more than 25 years ago. Since then, he has leveraged his wealth for social, civic, and political causes, including a series of unsuccessful bids to become a U.S. senator. The 79-year-old Lonsdale is an avowed atheist who has advocated for gay rights, campaign finance reform, and environmental protections. Now, he’s on a mission to accelerate the quest to understand how life originated. Over the past 2 weeks, Lonsdale has taken out ads in Science, Nature, and Chemical and Engineering News announcing an Origin of Life Research Award that includes $50,000 for the best proposal to study the origin of life and up to $2 million in potential funding to carry out the work.
This is serious stuff, with serious people (like Jack Szostak) backing it, and another thing that is cool about it is that Lonsdale openly admits that his atheism is a motivation for funding science. The website for the project explains exactly what he’s looking for.
All submissions will be reviewed by a panel of scientific experts. Submissions should contain a statement of work to be performed and a letter of institutional support where appropriate. Submissions that suggest a multidisciplinary approach should describe how the necessary research capabilities will be provided. Submissions that rely on extraterrestrial sources of key materials must describe in detail how those materials would have been generated. Submissions involving the supernatural or that violate physical laws will not be considered.
That last clause is a given for all scientific research — it’s just rare to see it so clearly said.
It looks like I missed my chance — I think this place was only a few blocks from the hotel where I stayed in Brighton a few weeks ago. An artist has put together a montage of 400 casts of women’s personal bits, called The Great Wall of Vagina. It’s impressive and rather pretty.
You know, I’ve been planning some research on natural variation in populations, and I’ve been looking into variation in limb morphology as an easy assay…but man, I’m looking at that and thinking there’s an even bigger reservoir of natural varieties right here in the human population. Somebody ought to do a study on that — preferably with a multigenerational sample and sibling comparisons to to see how much of it is heritable. We’d need to develop some standardized metrics, though, and it would probably be a much bigger project than I could handle at this point in my career, not to mention the strain it would put on the eyebrows of the human research review committee.
I did take a quick scan of the research literature, but only came up with this one source that mentions the paucity of research in this field.
Howarth H, Sommer V, Jordan FM (2010) Visual depictions of female genitalia differ depending on source. Med Humanit 36(2):75-9.
Very little research has attempted to describe normal human variation in female genitalia, and no studies have compared the visual images that women might use in constructing their ideas of average and acceptable genital morphology to see if there are any systematic differences. The objective of the present work was to determine if visual depictions of the vulva differed according to their source so as to alert medical professionals and their patients to how these depictions might capture variation and thus influence perceptions of ‘normality’. A comparative analysis was conducted by measuring (a) published visual materials from human anatomy textbooks in a university library, (b) feminist publications (print and online) depicting vulval morphology and (c) online pornography, focusing on the most visited and freely accessible sites in the UK. Post hoc tests showed that labial protuberance was significantly less (p<0.001, equivalent to approximately 7-14 mm) in images from online pornography compared to feminist publications. All five measures taken of vulval features were significantly correlated (p<0.001) in the online pornography sample, indicating a less varied range of differences in organ proportions than the other sources where not all measures were correlated. Women and health professionals should be aware that specific sources of imagery may depict different types of genital morphology and may not accurately reflect true variation in the population, and consultations for genital surgeries should include discussion about the actual and perceived range of variation in female genital morphology.
Somebody get to work on this! The artists are beating the scientists to the data!
The focus so far has been on the perception of the female genitalia, but it seems to me the really interesting question is in the source of these amazing variants.
It’s like talking to a brick wall: MacLatchie is appallingly obtuse. When last I argued with him, I pointed out that the major failing of his entire developmental argument against evolution was that it was built on a false premise. As I said then,
I can summarize it with one standard template: “Since Darwinian evolution predicts that development will conserve the evolutionary history of an organism, how do you account for feature X which doesn’t fit that model?” To which I can simply reply, “Evolution does not predict that development will conserve the evolutionary history of an organism, therefore your question is stupid.” It doesn’t matter how many X’s he drags out, given that the premise is false, the whole question is invalid.
So now MacLatchie revisits the debate, and what does he do? He just reiterates his flawed premises!
For those who want the bottom line, here it is. Myers thinks I’m worried about Haeckelian recapitulation. But that’s completely wrong. Neo-Darwinism itself predicts that early development, starting with fertilization, should be conserved.
And then just to make himself look even more stupid, he restates it in simple-minded logical terms.
The logic of my position takes a modus tollendo tollens form of argument:
A
1 If P then Q
2 ~ Q
3 ~ PBy instantiation in A
B
1 If the theory of common descent is true then early developmental stages should be conserved.
2 Early developmental stages are not conserved.
3 The theory of common descent is not true.The argument is impeccable: Whence the disagreement?
And as if that were not enough, he closes his post by reiterating a variation of the same argument:
C
1 If the theory of common descent is true then mutations to early developmental stages should be beneficial.
2 Early developmental mutations are not beneficial.
3 The theory of common descent is not true.
Good god. After I lectured him about how early developmental stages are not conserved, after I wrote the same thing, after I posted a refutation of his claims by pointing out that his premise is false, he somehow thinks he can win me over by repeating his premises a little more loudly?
Let’s make this equally simple-minded and clear.
Neo-Darwinism does not predict that early development will be conserved.
If it did, since it is trivially observable that there is wide variation in the status of the embryo at fertilization, then neo-Darwinism would be refuted, and would have been falsified prior to its formulation. Yet somehow, people like me, like Pere Alberch who he cited last time and like Rudy Raff who he cites this time, have no problem with evolution while openly discussing the divergence in early embryos.
Think about that, MacLatchie. Isn’t it obvious that you must be missing something?
Here’s another counter-example: Ernst Mayr, about as authoritative a source as you can find on the neo-Darwinian synthesis, wrote a very negative assessment of the likelihood of any molecular homology in the 1960s, before lots of sequence information became available.
Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives (Dobzhansky 1955). If there is only one efficient solution for a certain functional demand, very different gene complexes will come up with the same solution, no matter how different the pathway by which it is achieved (Mayr 1966:609).
Mayr died in 2005, at a time when there was a wealth of comparative information on the ubiquity of conserved genes in development: not only wasn’t conservation of homologous developmental genes a prediction of evolutionary theory, but discovery that there were homologous sequences didn’t induce Mayr to recant evolution on his deathbed.
Is it sinking in yet?
Neo-Darwinism does not predict that early development will be conserved.
It is just freakin’ bizarre to see these guys falling all over themselves to declare that a specific prediction of evolutionary theory has been falsified, when they can’t even comprehend that it is the scientists studying the phenomenon who are handing them all the data that they think invalidates the scientists’ science. The closest thing I can find to it is those crazy creationists who claim that evolutionary theory requires junk DNA, so every time a minor function for any piece of DNA is found, they can claim evolution is refuted.
MacLatchie is hopelessly confused. That early stages should be more resistant to change is not a prediction of evolutionary theory; it’s an inference from molecular genetics, that genes at the base of a long chain of essential interactions ought to be less likely to vary between species. What that doesn’t take into account is that genes are part of the great cloud of environmental interactions that go on to generate a selectable function, and that if the environment in which the gene is expressed changes, it can enable great changes in the activity of the gene.
These early genes are a classic example of this phenomenon: what we see in many lineages is variation in the degree of maternal investment in the egg. It can be yolky, it can be low in yolk, it can have cytoplasmic determinants directly imbedded by maternal factors in the egg, or it can be mostly uniform and regulative. The early zygotic genes can be freed up for evolutionary novelties if their functions are assumed by maternal genes, so we can correlate a lot of this variation with variation in maternal investment.
It wouldn’t be a creationist paper without a quote mine, and MacLatchie does not fail: he quotes Rudolf Raff to support his claims. Rudolf Raff! One of the founders of the whole field of evo-devo! Dragooned into supposedly supporting an Intelligent Design creationism claim! These guys have no shame at all.
Unfortunately, I haven’t read the specific paper MacLatchie cites, but I’m familiar with the work: this is Raff’s beautiful examination of two closely related urchin species, Heliocidaris erythrogramma and H. tuberculata, which are practically indistinguishable in their adult morphology but have radically different embryos. Here’s the abstract, at least, from the paper MacLatchie chose to distort:
Larval forms are highly conserved in evolution, and phylogeneticists have used shared larval features to link disparate phyla. Despite long-term conservation, early development has in some cases evolved radically. Analysis of evolutionary change depends on identification of homologues, and this concept of descent with modification applies to embryo cells and territories as well. Difficulties arise because evolutionary changes in development can obscure homologies. Even more difficult, threshold effects can yield changes in process whereby apparently homologous features can arise from new precursors or pathways. We have observed phenomena of this type in closely related sea urchins that differ in developmental mode. A species developing via a complex feeding larva and its congener, which develops directly, have different embryonic cell lineages and divergent patterns of early development, but converge on the adult sea urchin body plan. Despite differences in embryonic developmental pathways, conserved gene expression territories are evident, as are territories whose homologies are in doubt. The highly derived development of the direct developer evidently arises from an interplay of novel organization of the egg, loss of expression of regulatory gene involved in production of feeding larval features, and changes in site and timing of expression of a number of genes.
I’ve highlighted the relevant part of the story for poor blind MacLatchie. One species is a direct developer: it lays a large yolk-rich egg which develops directly into the round spiky adult form. The other is an indirect developer, which lays a less yolky egg which first forms a feeding ciliated larva which swims about eating before making a metamorphosis into the adult form. These are radically different embryonic forms.
Gosh, I guess evolution is false.
But no! Remember, neo-Darwinism does not predict that early development will be conserved.
The explanation is given right there in Raff’s abstract, which MacLatchie must have read, and equally obviously must not have understood. Raff does, though: he understands that there were evolutionary changes in “novel organization of the egg, loss of expression of regulatory gene involved in production of feeding larval features, and changes in site and timing of expression of a number of genes,” all phenomena entirely compatible with evolutionary theory.
As one last instance of the muddled logic of Jonathan MacLatchie, I will leave you with two quotes from him. The first is from his last article on this subject:
At best, all his case demonstrated was common ancestry — a proposition which is perfectly compatible with intelligent design.
This is a common statement from creationists like Behe, who also say they have no problem with common descent, it’s just that they don’t accept that mutation and selection and natural processes could possibly have done the job. So MacLatchie is just stating the nominal, default, superficial position of many Intelligent Design creationists.
This time around, though, he says this:
If common descent is true, however, early development must somehow evolve via mutations.
Oh, really? Which is it going to be? Does he think common descent is true or not true?
He doesn’t need to answer, I already know it: whichever claim suits his current rhetorical purposes.
Animal Aid, one of those mindless animal rights organizations, has just called on everyone in the UK to stop donating to specific medical charities, because they sponsor research that uses animals. I can sympathize with the goal of minimizing suffering in animals, but this is ridiculous: the subjects of these research programs simply can’t be approached without using animal models.
The charities targeted are Cancer Research UK, the
Parkinson’s UK. If you’re in the UK, make a special effort to donate to these worthy organizations, to counter the misplaced anti-science campaign of these confused and ignorant people.
Or if you think Animal Aid is right, then how about volunteering your brains and hearts and bodies for the experimental work without which progress in treating these diseases cannot be made.
It’s the Holotypic Occlupanid Research Group. “Occlupanid”, in case you weren’t familiar with the lingo, is the taxonomic term for bread ties, those little plastic clips used to close up plastic bread sacks. There is more than you ever wanted to know about bread ties at that link.
It’s actually rather thought provoking: it’s an entire classification scheme for a trivial industrial widget.
