Revisiting convergence (Introduction)
by David Turell , Monday, June 15, 2015, 14:19 (3448 days ago)
Convergence ( chief proponent Simon Conway Morris) is back in the news. Spider and centipede venom looks the same in structure. This is the pattern planning I think was used by God in directing evolution:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43251/title/Spider-and-Centipede-Venom-Remarkably-Similar/-"Spiders and centipedes don't have a whole lot in common, at least in terms of evolution. The eight-legged arachnids diverged from other arthropods, including insects, about 400 million years ago, developing structures, behaviors, and ecological niches all their own. But a team of researchers has found that at least some spider and centipede species share molecular architecture in their venom proteins thanks to convergent evolution. University of Queensland structural biologist Glenn King and his coauthors reported yesterday (June 11) in Structure that an insulin-like protein in the venom of hobo spiders (Eratigena agrestis) and some centipede species has a very similar molecular structure to the hormone from which both compounds evolved. Even though the genetic sequences of the toxins and the hormone are very different, similarity in the structure of the two pointed to a shared evolutionary history. “If you take the sequence of the spider toxin and you do a BLAST search, the hormone is so different now that you don't pull it out,” King said in a statement. “But when we did a structural search and it pulled up the hormone, that's what really surprised us—the sequence didn't tell us where the toxins evolved from, but the structure did pretty clearly.'”
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Thursday, June 18, 2015, 08:27 (3446 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Convergence ( chief proponent Simon Conway Morris) is back in the news. Spider and centipede venom looks the same in structure. This is the pattern planning I think was used by God in directing evolution:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43251/title/Spider-and-Centipede-...-"Spiders and centipedes don't have a whole lot in common, at least in terms of evolution. The eight-legged arachnids diverged from other arthropods, including insects, about 400 million years ago, developing structures, behaviors, and ecological niches all their own. But a team of researchers has found that at least some spider and centipede species share molecular architecture in their venom proteins thanks to convergent evolution...”-Why on earth convergence should be regarded as evidence of “pattern planning” I don't know. If all forms of life developed from earlier forms, it stands to reason that regardless of divergence, there will be similar solutions to similar problems. If you insist on interpreting every variation (divergence) and every similarity (convergence) as evidence of God's planning, I shall have to insist on asking you why each example - in this case the venom of the centipede and the spider - was essential to the production of humans. So just add it to the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the plover's navigation, the whale's blowhole, the spider's silk...This could go on forever. I have a proposal: if you stop harping on about planning, I'll stop asking you how the plans fit in with anthropocentrism. But please don't stop telling us about Nature's Wonders. These are a revelation in themselves.-****************-Many thanks for keeping the website going during my absence. I'm pleased to report that the productions of the two plays were excellent. A tribute to human planning and what can be achieved by the process of convergence!
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Thursday, June 18, 2015, 19:50 (3445 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Why on earth convergence should be regarded as evidence of “pattern planning” I don't know. If all forms of life developed from earlier forms, it stands to reason that regardless of divergence, there will be similar solutions to similar problems.-It stands to reason that it makes it much easier to plan an evolution of life process if some standard solutions and plans are in place in the beginning.-> dhw: If you insist on interpreting every variation (divergence) and every similarity (convergence) as evidence of God's planning, I shall have to insist on asking you why each example - in this case the venom of the centipede and the spider - was essential to the production of humans.-I don't know that it is. It is a point you keep insisting on, as though every variation is part of a necessary plan for human development. It obviously isn't. -> dhw: So just add it to the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the plover's navigation, the whale's blowhole, the spider's silk...This could go on forever. I have a proposal: if you stop harping on about planning, I'll stop asking you how the plans fit in with anthropocentrism.-Again, I don't know that that they need to fit in with the final goal. Maybe God is just being inventive on the side of the major stream to see or show just how clever He can be in conjuring up Natures Wonders-> dhw: But please don't stop telling us about Nature's Wonders. These are a revelation in themselves.-Thank you, and yes they are. They make my point that these complex life plans require design. > > **************** > > dhw: Many thanks for keeping the website going during my absence. I'm pleased to report that the productions of the two plays were excellent. A tribute to human planning and what can be achieved by the process of convergence!-Glad to have you back. Now if only the folks at the Globe will take notice.
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Friday, June 19, 2015, 16:48 (3444 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Why on earth convergence should be regarded as evidence of “pattern planning” I don't know. If all forms of life developed from earlier forms, it stands to reason that regardless of divergence, there will be similar solutions to similar problems.-DAVID: It stands to reason that it makes it much easier to plan an evolution of life process if some standard solutions and plans are in place in the beginning.-The at best tautological statement that it is easier to plan evolutionary life processes if you plan them can be countered by the equally tautological statement that it is easier for evolutionary mechanisms to work out their own solutions if they are left to work out their own solutions. dhw: If you insist on interpreting every variation (divergence) and every similarity (convergence) as evidence of God's planning, I shall have to insist on asking you why each example - in this case the venom of the centipede and the spider - was essential to the production of humans.-DAVID: I don't know that it is. It is a point you keep insisting on, as though every variation is part of a necessary plan for human development. It obviously isn't.-It is you who have always insisted that your God's purpose in creating life and evolution was to produce humans! You have previously argued that you don't know why all these variations were necessary. However, I gladly accept your acknowledgement that all these variations obviously were NOT necessary for human development, and I trust you will now also acknowledge that the long higgledy-piggledy history of life obviously does not fit in with your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution. -dhw: So just add it to the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the plover's navigation, the whale's blowhole, the spider's silk...This could go on forever. I have a proposal: if you stop harping on about planning, I'll stop asking you how the plans fit in with anthropocentrism.-DAVID: Again, I don't know that that they need to fit in with the final goal. Maybe God is just being inventive on the side of the major stream to see or show just how clever He can be in conjuring up Natures Wonders-Or maybe (if he is there) he is just seeing how clever the autonomous inventive mechanism can be in conjuring up Nature's Wonders.-dhw: But please don't stop telling us about Nature's Wonders. These are a revelation in themselves. DAVID: Thank you, and yes they are. They make my point that these complex life plans require design.-I don't know why you call them “life plans”, except that you are desperate to include the word “plan” in all your observations. I agree that these complexities require design, since I cannot believe that organisms simply blunder into them. The point at issue is whether they do the designing for themselves.
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Friday, June 19, 2015, 18:45 (3444 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: But please don't stop telling us about Nature's Wonders. These are a revelation in themselves. > DAVID: Thank you, and yes they are. They make my point that these complex life plans require design. > > dhw: I don't know why you call them “life plans”, except that you are desperate to include the word “plan” in all your observations. I agree that these complexities require design, since I cannot believe that organisms simply blunder into them. The point at issue is whether they do the designing for themselves.- Yes, that is the issue. But the 'wonders' are so complexly wonderful they strongly suggest design by a powerful inventive mind.
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Saturday, June 20, 2015, 11:03 (3443 days ago) @ David Turell
Dhw: I agree that these complexities require design, since I cannot believe that organisms simply blunder into them. The point at issue is whether they do the designing for themselves.-DAVID: Yes, that is the issue. But the 'wonders' are so complexly wonderful they strongly suggest design by a powerful inventive mind.-Or they strongly suggest design by individual minds working out solutions to individual problems and passing those solutions on to subsequent generations.
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Saturday, June 20, 2015, 20:38 (3443 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Or they strongly suggest design by individual minds working out solutions to individual problems and passing those solutions on to subsequent generations.-At what level of evolutionary development do you think minds appear?
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Sunday, June 21, 2015, 12:30 (3442 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: But the 'wonders' are so complexly wonderful they strongly suggest design by a powerful inventive mind.-dhw: Or they strongly suggest design by individual minds working out solutions to individual problems and passing those solutions on to subsequent generations.-DAVID: At what level of evolutionary development do you think minds appear?-It depends on your definition of “mind”, which we normally associate with human thought, self-awareness, intellect etc. When experts talk of the intelligent cell, they emphatically do not mean a human form of intelligence, but if, as they tell us, bacteria are individual, cognitive, decision-making beings, I would suggest that a primitive form of mind in the sense of intelligence was present in the very first cells. The next essential evolutionary step was when cells combined, and so rudimentary minds or intelligences began the process of complexification. Since you and I both believe in common descent, you will have to agree that evolution has proceeded through one inventive innovation after another, each one taking place within existing organisms. Clearly, then, inventive intelligence has been at work since the beginning of evolution, and that would be a form of “mind”. It should go without saying - but I will say it all the same - that my answer is neither theistic nor atheistic, since the origin of such “minds” remains an open question.
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Sunday, June 21, 2015, 14:48 (3442 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: At what level of evolutionary development do you think minds appear? > > dhw: It depends on your definition of “mind”, which we normally associate with human thought, self-awareness, intellect etc. When experts talk of the intelligent cell, they emphatically do not mean a human form of intelligence, but if, as they tell us, bacteria are individual, cognitive, decision-making beings, I would suggest that a primitive form of mind in the sense of intelligence was present in the very first cells.-Because they were very complex from the beginning. See below.-> dhw: The next essential evolutionary step was when cells combined, and so rudimentary minds or intelligences began the process of complexification...... inventive intelligence has been at work since the beginning of evolution, and that would be a form of “mind”. It should go without saying - but I will say it all the same - that my answer is neither theistic nor atheistic, since the origin of such “minds” remains an open question.-It remains an open question for you. You need to note the point made by Paul Falkowski in his book:-http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Engines-Microbes-Habitable-Essentials/dp/0691155372/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434895597&sr=1-1&keywords=falkowski+life%27s+engines&pebp=1434895604582&perid=1JDKHYK7GEZW9NWSH2PE-"Paul Falkowski looks "under the hood" of microbes to find the engines of life, the actual working parts that do the biochemical heavy lifting for every living organism on Earth. With insight and humor, he explains how these miniature engines are built--and how they have been appropriated by and assembled like Lego sets within every creature that walks, swims, or flies. Falkowski shows how evolution works to maintain this core machinery of life, and how we and other animals are veritable conglomerations of microbes."-And:-"Today, driven by ongoing technological innovations, the exploration of the “nanoverse,” as the realm of the minuscule is often termed, continues to gather pace. One of the field's greatest pioneers is Paul Falkowski, a biological oceanographer who has spent much of his scientific career working at the intersection of physics, chemistry, and biology. His book Life's Engines: How Microbes Made Earth Habitable focuses on one of the most astonishing discoveries of the twentieth century-that our cells are comprised of a series of highly sophisticated “little engines” or nanomachines that carry out life's vital functions. It is a work full of surprises, arguing for example that all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago-less than a billion years after Earth formed, and a period at which our planet was largely hostile to living things. How such mind-bending complexity could have evolved at such an early stage, and in such a hostile environment, has forced a fundamental reconsideration of the origins of life itself."-http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jul/09/how-you-consist-trillions-tiny-machines/-This book makes the point I make. Our cells autonomously run the machines of our body automatically. Please explain how complexity appeared 3.5 billion years ago to give bacteria the appearance of 'minds'. It requires a planning mind if you believe in cause and effect.
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Monday, June 22, 2015, 13:00 (3441 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: At what level of evolutionary development do you think minds appear?dhw: I would suggest that a primitive form of mind in the sense of intelligence was present in the very first cells. [...] The next essential evolutionary step was when cells combined, and so rudimentary minds or intelligences began the process of complexification...... inventive intelligence has been at work since the beginning of evolution, and that would be a form of “mind”. It should go without saying - but I will say it all the same - that my answer is neither theistic nor atheistic, since the origin of such “minds” remains an open question. DAVID: It remains an open question for you. You need to note the point made by Paul Falkowski in his book....-The point quoted has nothing to do with a theistic or atheistic origin of “minds”.-QUOTE: "[Paul Falkowski's] book Life's Engines: How Microbes Made Earth Habitable focuses on one of the most astonishing discoveries of the twentieth century - that our cells are comprised of a series of highly sophisticated “little engines” or nanomachines that carry out life's vital functions. It is a work full of surprises, arguing for example that all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago [...] How such mind-bending complexity could have evolved at such an early stage, and in such a hostile environment, has forced a fundamental reconsideration of the origins of life itself."-http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jul/09/how-you-consist-trillions-tiny-mac...-DAVID: This book makes the point I make. Our cells autonomously run the machines of our body automatically. Please explain how complexity appeared 3.5 billion years ago to give bacteria the appearance of 'minds'. It requires a planning mind if you believe in cause and effect.-I wonder what evidence he has that important innovations such as sexual organs, brains, eyes, hearts, livers, lungs etc. were already present 3.5 billion years ago. Of course I haven't read the book, but I see nothing here to contradict my argument that intelligence was present in the first cells and grew in complexity with multicellularity. No-one would dispute that our bodies consist of communities of microbes, and I have always agreed that once an innovation is in place, the cells automatically fulfil their role. The inventive intelligence only comes into play when conditions change, leading to adaptation or - through exploitation of new opportunities - innovation. (Otherwise, extinction.) As regards ‘how' complexity appeared, I assume it was through the cooperation of cells, whether it was 3.5 billion years ago or not. And nobody knows how bacteria acquired their ‘minds' (according to many specialists) or the ‘appearance of minds' (according to you), because nobody knows the origin of life/reproduction/the evolutionary mechanism/sentience/ cognition/ consciousness etc. Only if Falkowski goes on to argue that the complexity requires your God's planning can you claim that he makes the same point as you. Even if he does, it remains a matter of speculative interpretation.
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Monday, June 22, 2015, 14:30 (3441 days ago) @ dhw
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jul/09/how-you-consist-trillions-tiny-mac... > DAVID: This book makes the point I make. Our cells autonomously run the machines of our body automatically. Please explain how complexity appeared 3.5 billion years ago to give bacteria the appearance of 'minds'. It requires a planning mind if you believe in cause and effect. > > dhw: I wonder what evidence he has that important innovations such as sexual organs, brains, eyes, hearts, livers, lungs etc. were already present 3.5 billion years ago.-The only point he made concerned single cells being very complex from the beginning. why do you bring up much more modern organs?-> dhw: Of course I haven't read the book, but I see nothing here to contradict my argument that intelligence was present in the first cells and grew in complexity with multicellularity.-And I state that the 'intelligence' is in the intelligent information that automatically runs the cells-> dhw: I have always agreed that once an innovation is in place, the cells automatically fulfil their role. The inventive intelligence only comes into play when conditions change, leading to adaptation or - through exploitation of new opportunities - innovation. (Otherwise, extinction.)-Once multicellularity appears (we don't know how) the genome mechanisms with epigenetics allow adaptation, but so far the speciation process is still unknown, just assumed to automatically occur.-> dhw: As regards ‘how' complexity appeared, I assume it was through the cooperation of cells, whether it was 3.5 billion years ago or not.-You assumption is guess work, because science really doesn't know how it happened.-> dhw: And nobody knows how bacteria acquired their ‘minds' (according to many specialists) or the ‘appearance of minds' (according to you), because nobody knows the origin of life/reproduction/the evolutionary mechanism/sentience/ cognition/ consciousness etc.-Exactly!-> dhw: Only if Falkowski goes on to argue that the complexity requires your God's planning can you claim that he makes the same point as you. Even if he does, it remains a matter of speculative interpretation.-I am happy with my interpretation.
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 12:42 (3440 days ago) @ David Turell
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jul/09/how-you-consist-trillions-tiny-mac... This book makes the point I make. Our cells autonomously run the machines of our body automatically. Please explain how complexity appeared 3.5 billion years ago to give bacteria the appearance of 'minds'. It requires a planning mind if you believe in cause and effect. dhw: I wonder what evidence he has that important innovations such as sexual organs, brains, eyes, hearts, livers, lungs etc. were already present 3.5 billion years ago.-DAVID: The only point he made concerned single cells being very complex from the beginning. why do you bring up much more modern organs?-I was referring to the quote: “It is a work full of surprises, arguing for example that all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago.” Or do you not consider sexual organs, brains etc. to be among life's most important innovations?-DAVID: Once multicellularity appears (we don't know how) the genome mechanisms with epigenetics allow adaptation, but so far the speciation process is still unknown, just assumed to automatically occur.-The fact that the cause of innovations leading to speciation is unknown is the reason for so much speculation. Darwin attributed it to random mutations worked on by natural selection. You have suggested that your God preprogrammed innovations or deliberately intervened, and I have suggested that organisms have an autonomous inventive intelligence which enables some of them to adapt (= remain the same) or respond innovatively (= speciation) to changing conditions, while others fail to do either, and become extinct.-dhw: Only if Falkowski goes on to argue that the complexity requires your God's planning can you claim that he makes the same point as you. Even if he does, it remains a matter of speculative interpretation. DAVID: I am happy with my interpretation.-Of course, and I am happy that you are happy. However, you claimed that Falkowski supported your interpretation, which is perhaps an unwarranted assumption on your part. We'd need to read the book to find out.
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 15:13 (3440 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Only if Falkowski goes on to argue that the complexity requires your God's planning can you claim that he makes the same point as you. Even if he does, it remains a matter of speculative interpretation. > DAVID: I am happy with my interpretation. > > dhw: Of course, and I am happy that you are happy. However, you claimed that Falkowski supported your interpretation, which is perhaps an unwarranted assumption on your part. We'd need to read the book to find out.-The main point of his book, as I understand it from reviews, is that the initial living cells were highly complex from the beginning. In my view the cells in multicellularity reflect that complexity in how they function so precisely and automatically.
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Wednesday, June 24, 2015, 20:38 (3439 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: The main point of his [Falkowski's] book, as I understand it from reviews, is that the initial living cells were highly complex from the beginning. In my view the cells in multicellularity reflect that complexity in how they function so precisely and automatically.-I'm surprised to hear that this is the main focus. I think most of us learned long ago that the single cell is highly complex, and since we still can't make things reproduce themselves, it seems a fair assumption that the first living cells were also highly complex. And if single cell organisms are complex, one would surely expect multicellular organisms to reflect and enhance that complexity. But of course these are comments on your extrapolations from reviews - not on the book itself. -The complexity of multicellularity would also be reflected by how cell communities use an autonomous inventive mechanism to create innovations before each community slots into automatic implementation of the new structure. And so I still wonder whether Falkowski shares your earlier insistence that this complexity requires a god.-I am also still puzzled by the quote: “all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago”. This would certainly be a major surprise, but since you have not commented on it, may I assume you are as puzzled as I am?
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 24, 2015, 22:07 (3439 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:I am also still puzzled by the quote: “all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago”. This would certainly be a major surprise, but since you have not commented on it, may I assume you are as puzzled as I am?-I didn't think it needed comment as I interpret that he is referring to the complexity of the single cell which arrived at about that time.
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 15:25 (3438 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: I am also still puzzled by the quote: “all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago”. Since you have not commented on this, may I assume you are as puzzled as I am?-DAVID: I didn't think it needed comment as I interpret that he is referring to the complexity of the single cell which arrived at about that time. -So do you think the complexity of the first single cells constitutes “all of life's most important innovations”? I thought you thought the purpose of evolution was to produce humans. Ah well, if brains and hearts and sexual organs and eyes and ears are not among the most important innovations, I guess humans are secondary in importance to bacteria. I'm sure bacteria would agree if they thought in those terms.
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Thursday, June 25, 2015, 18:47 (3438 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: I didn't think it needed comment as I interpret that he is referring to the complexity of the single cell which arrived at about that time. > > dhw: So do you think the complexity of the first single cells constitutes “all of life's most important innovations”? I thought you thought the purpose of evolution was to produce humans. -My comment is quite clear. That first momentous invention of a stand-alone single cell is all he was inferring to. Multicellularity then built on it with conglomerations of automatic organs running without my help so I can live my life unrestrained by having to make decisions about my urine concentration.
Revisiting convergence; automaticity
by David Turell , Thursday, June 25, 2015, 19:20 (3438 days ago) @ David Turell
this article shows how automatic the body is to perceived danger; flight or fight starts with adrenaline and the heart responds with calcium uptake by the mitochondria, supplying power for the reaction:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-calcium-uptake-mitochondria-heart-harder.html-"In a life-threatening situation, the heart beats faster and harder, invigorated by the fight-or-flight response, which instantaneously prepares a person to react or run. Now, a new study by researchers at Temple University School of Medicine (TUSM) shows that the uptick in heart muscle contractility that occurs under acute stress is driven by a flood of calcium into mitochondria—the cells' energy-producing powerhouses.-"In the fight-or-flight response, the release of adrenaline activates numerous systems in the body to prepare for the perceived stress. A key aspect of this response is an increase in cardiac contractility. Adrenaline increases calcium cycling in the heart to drive contraction. That same calcium enters mitochondria through a channel known as the mitochondrial calcium uniporter (MCU). Dr. Elrod and colleagues at TUSM and Cincinnati Children's Hospital have been investigating MCU since its discovery in 2011, attempting to elucidate its function specifically in heart muscle cells.-"As part of their work, they knocked out, or removed, MCU from mitochondria in the hearts of adult mice. In doing so, they discovered that in mice lacking MCU, the heart failed to respond to adrenaline-receptor stimulation with isoproterenol—an adrenaline-like chemical that in high doses normally sends the heart into overdrive, mimicking aspects of the fight-or-flight response."
Revisiting convergence
by dhw, Friday, June 26, 2015, 12:47 (3437 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: So do you think the complexity of the first single cells constitutes “all of life's most important innovations”? I thought you thought the purpose of evolution was to produce humans.-DAVID: My comment is quite clear. That first momentous invention of a stand-alone single cell is all he was inferring to. Multicellularity then built on it with conglomerations of automatic organs running without my help so I can live my life unrestrained by having to make decisions about my urine concentration.-The quote was from the review and not the book itself: “It is a work full of surprises, arguing for example that all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago.” We'd need to read the book to know what he was referring to.-As usual you like to plug “automaticity” (which you do again with the article describing responses to danger), and so as usual I must respond that once an innovation is in place, I agree that cell communities function automatically. The theory of the autonomous inventive mechanism, following on from that of the intelligent cell, is my suggestion to explain the unsolved mystery of innovation, which - if you believe in common descent - can only take place in existing organisms. Your counter-argument has been that your God preprogrammed your “automatic organs” into those first living cells, though in relation to this and most of Nature's Wonders, you have tried to modify the almost infinite programme capacity of those first cells with the nebulous concept of “guided evolution”.
Revisiting convergence
by David Turell , Friday, June 26, 2015, 18:34 (3437 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As usual you like to plug “automaticity” (which you do again with the article describing responses to danger), and so as usual I must respond that once an innovation is in place, I agree that cell communities function automatically. The theory of the autonomous inventive mechanism, following on from that of the intelligent cell, is my suggestion to explain the unsolved mystery of innovation, which - if you believe in common descent - can only take place in existing organisms. Your counter-argument has been that your God preprogrammed your “automatic organs” into those first living cells, though in relation to this and most of Nature's Wonders, you have tried to modify the almost infinite programme capacity of those first cells with the nebulous concept of “guided evolution”.-A good summary of positions
Revisiting convergence: another example
by David Turell , Friday, November 13, 2015, 03:20 (3298 days ago) @ David Turell
It is all over the place:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28138-resistance-to-toad-toxin-shows-evolution-can-repeat-itself/-The article speaks for itself.
Revisiting convergence: another example
by David Turell , Friday, October 21, 2016, 01:32 (2955 days ago) @ David Turell
Plants make caffeine in different ways with different enzymes, but with similar pathways:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47087/title/How-Plants-Evolved-Di...
"Plant species belonging to divergent branches of the evolutionary tree are known to have independently evolved caffeine production. According to scientists at Western Michigan University, caffeine-producing plants have taken a number of different biochemical routes to synthesize the stimulant. Coffee, tea, cocoa, orange, and guaraná plants make caffeine using an array of enzymes and substrates,
***
"Caffeine is produced by approximately 30 of the world’s 300,000 or so different species of flowering plants, estimated Todd Barkman of Western Michigan, who led the new study. The divergent nature of these species and of the functions the molecule performs—attracting pollinators, deterring pests, and more—has indicated that caffeine production independently evolved multiple times, Barkman said.
"Indeed, studies have shown that coffee (Coffea arabica) and tea (Camellia sinensis) use different enzymes to generate caffeine—xanthine methyltransferases (XMT) and caffeine synthases (CS), respectively. Furthermore, comparisons of the coffee genome (Coffea canephora) to genes from cocoa (Theobroma cacao) and tea have provided genetic confirmation of the convergent rather than divergent evolution of caffeine production.
***
"Barkman considered that the enzymes might utilize alternative substrates. “For every enzyme we tested every possible substrate related to the caffeine biosynthetic network,” he told The Scientist. And, at last, the experiments worked. “We all just jumped for joy,” said Barkman.
"It turned out that while the tea and coffee pathways begin with xanthosine, the other plants studied make use of a similar molecule, called xanthine. Some or all of the intermediate molecules in the pathways also differed in cocoa, orange, and guaraná plant caffeine synthesis.
“'It really illustrates the idiosyncratic nature of how selection can pick and choose,” Barkman said.
"The team went on to investigate how the enzymes might have evolved, focusing on the XMT enzyme from the Citrus lineage. By comparing the sequences of orthologous XMTs from approximately 500 other flowering species, and by calculating probabilities of amino acid substitutions over millions of years, the researchers recreated putative ancestral enzymes and tested them in biochemical assays.
They found that the earliest synthetic ancestor, which the Citrus lineage would have shared with coffee, could methylate benzoic acid and salicylic acid (carboxylic acids involved in floral scent, pathogen defense, and more), but could not methylate xanthine or xanthosine. A more recent synthetic Citrus XMT ancestor, however, could utilize both salicylic acid and xanthine, the team found.'"
Comment: A clear example of plant convergence. Might this come from guidelines in an inventive mechanism.
Revisiting convergence: variable genetic change
by David Turell , Friday, October 21, 2016, 15:08 (2954 days ago) @ David Turell
Phenotypic traits may look the same but the genetic changes may be different and variable:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47314/title/Many-Evolutionary-Pat...
"Many more genetic changes can result in the same phenotype than previously suspected, according to a study of birds spanning 56 divergent species. Analyzing the structure and function of their hemoglobin proteins, Jay Storz of the University of Nebraska, Christopher Witt of the University of New Mexico, and their colleagues uncovered a wide breadth of mutations that all resulted in higher hemoglobin affinities for oxygen among birds living at high altitudes.
***
"Storz, Witt, and their colleagues sought to understand whether there are many different ways genes can evolve to the same hemoglobin function. The researchers collected 56 bird species from the Andes and Rocky Mountains and sequenced the three genes that make up the hemoglobin subunits. Considering the species as 28 related pairs—one species that lives at high altitudes and one lowland species, the team found that, as expected, the high-altitude bird of each pair had a higher affinity for oxygen, but of the 28 high-altitude species, only four had the same amino acid changes.
"Because few amino acid changes were thought to affect the hemoglobin protein’s oxygen affinity, researchers had assumed that the evolution of the underlying genes was predictable. But the authors of the new study unexpectedly found that many of these amino acid changes were not in the active site of the protein that interacts with oxygen.
"'We were addressing whether genetic evolution is predictable and we found that evolutionary changes may be highly predictable at the at the level of biochemical phenotype, but that there can be far less predictability at the underlying genetic level,” Storz explained.
"He and his colleagues then tested whether the observed hemoglobin mutations were affected by the sequences already present within the hemoglobin genes. They introduced the most common mutation (found in hummingbirds and a flowerpiercer species) into a plasmid encoding the ancestral hummingbird hemoglobin genes, then expressed and purified the protein and found that it had a higher affinity for oxygen. The same mutation introduced into a more ancestral avian hemoglobin gene did not increase the protein’s affinity for oxygen, however.
“'An important implication of our work is that, for any given gene, the substitutions accumulated through evolutionary history determine the set of mutations acceptable or beneficial in the future,” said Storz. “The evolutionary mutation options available to one species may not be available to another.”
“'The different paths that evolution takes depend on a lineage’s evolutionary history, with molecular changes in the distant past opening or closing doors for particular changes in the future,” agrees McGlothlin."
Comment: What is missing from our knowledge of genetics is how a code change translates to actual phenotype. The gene is identified as cause, we see the effect, but none of the process inbetween. It is a huge black box. This indicates that the code has several pathways to a successful result, which makes it easier for evolution to progress to better adaptations. This is an equivalent finding that fits dhw's thought about organism's ability to invent. I think God made the code with this variability which lead to comparable but not exactly the same results of adaptation. It is the same concept as individual variability allowing for adaptation and survival in the bacteria/ antibiotic challenge study previously discussed. Less rigid constraints in the mechanisms. With similar effective results, this is how I view my concept of guidelines may work.
Revisiting convergence: in bioluminescent enzymes
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 26, 2017, 16:26 (2676 days ago) @ David Turell
Glowing enzymes that are the same are found in different unrelated organisms:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49850/title/The-Unlikely-Relation...
"Although the long-tentacled brittle star (Amphiura filiformis) differs from the stout sea pansy (Renilla) in both appearance and phylogeny, researchers have now demonstrated that they share a similar luciferase—an enzyme that catalyzes the light-producing reaction that results in the invertebrates’ bioluminescence.
"When an international group of researchers searched the brittle star’s genome and transcriptome for known luciferase sequences, they detected sequences in the echinoderm that were homologous to those of the luciferase of the sea pansy—a cnidarian. The sequences were so similar, in fact, that antibodies specific to the sea pansy luciferase could also detect the brittle star luciferase.
"Conventional dogma states that every taxonomic group has its own distinct luciferase, explains lead author Jérôme Delroisse of the University of Mons; but previous work has found similar homologies in distantly related species. How such different species acquired similar luciferases remains unclear, however.
"The sea pansy’s luciferase has known homology to a nonbioluminescent bacterial enzyme, and the authors uncovered similar proteins in other nonluminous organisms. The data suggest that both brittle star and sea pansy luciferases evolved “from a common ancestral protein originally not involved in light emission,” says Delroisse, and that the gene for this protein horizontally transferred from bacteria to a common ancestor. It’s becoming clearer that “not all independently evolved bioluminescent enzymes have to be structurally different,” says Miriam Sharpe of the University of Otago who was not involved in the study."
Comment: The study's tortured explanation is an attempt to stick with standard Darwinism. There are bioluminescent bacteria that have symbiotic relationships with other organisms. Invoking horizontal transfer is an attempt to get around the issue of the size and complexity of enzymes and the improbability of chance discovery of the same molecule by chance mutation. Convergence is a theory that suggests there is an overall underlying plan for evolution, championed by Simon Conway Morris. Makes as much sense as the author's suggestion or perhaps more sense.
Revisiting convergence: a new view
by David Turell , Friday, September 15, 2017, 01:21 (2626 days ago) @ David Turell
Real convergence does occur but why are there 'one-ofs'?
http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/why-hasnt-evolution-made-another-platypus?utm_source...
"For many decades, the accepted narrative in evolutionary biology, as formulated by Stephen Jay Gould, was one of such contingency: Change any one event in the history of life, and all life might have looked entirely different. Life as it exists today was not inevitable or even likely, but a roll of the evolutionary dice.
"In recent years, however, a cadre of scientists, led by Simon Conway Morris, has taken the opposite view, arguing that certain evolutionary solutions are indeed quite likely—as evidenced when entirely different species repeatedly evolve the same adaptive solutions to problems posed by the environment—such as the very similar eye structure of humans and octopuses. These repeated solutions are called evolutionary convergence.
"We can easily understand convergence, species adapting in the same way to similar circumstances. But what about the evolutionary one-offs? Why haven’t other species convergently evolved similar adaptations to them?
"One explanation for evolutionary one-offs is that these species occur in unique environments. Perhaps they have no analogs because no other species has experienced a similar environment. This, possibly, explains the koala. Its entire lifestyle revolves around living in eucalyptus trees and eating their leaves, which are loaded with poisonous compounds. The koala’s digestive system is extremely long, providing ample time to slowly detoxify the leaves and extract the nutrients. ...Eucalyptus trees naturally occur only in Australia, so maybe the singularity of the koala reflects the uniqueness of its environment.
"But I suspect this is not the explanation in most cases. Platypuses occur in the streams, ponds, lakes, and rivers of eastern Australia, where they eat crayfish and other aquatic invertebrates. When they’re not out paddling around, they retire to their rest chambersdug into the stream bank. The platypus lifestyle would seem to be possible in many places beside Australia. The streams they occupy are much like the creek that ran behind my friend’s house when I was growing up in Saint Louis.
***
"The other explanation for evolutionary one-offs is that natural selection is either not as predictable or as powerful as some make it out to be. That is, even when species experience identical environments, they might not evolve in the same way.
"A key reason for lack of convergence is that there may be more than one way to adapt to a problem posed by the environment. Think about the way vertebrate animals swim. Many use their tail for thrust, but not all tails are the same. Fish tails are vertically flattened and are moved back and forth. Crocodiles swim in the same way. But whale tails are horizontally flattened and are moved up and down.
***
" To be considered convergent, how similar do the traits of two species have to be? Squid and dolphins use very different anatomical structures to move rapidly through the water—there’s no question that they are not convergent. The foot-propelled locomotion of some aquatic birds is yet another non-convergent means of rapid underwater propulsion.
***
"So, are the forearm-modified wings of birds, bats, and pterosaurs convergent adaptations for powered flight that are built in different ways? Or do they represent alternative, non-convergent means of evolving powered flight?
***
"Where one draws the line between convergence and non-convergence among structures that are grossly similar and produce the same functional advantage is arbitrary. My inclination is to consider the wings of birds, bats, and pterosaurs to be convergent. Similarly, I view baleen whales and whale sharks convergent overall because both are large-mouthed, filter-feeding planktivores; however, I consider their filter-feeding structures to be non-convergent, alternative adaptations for filter feeding.
***
"Non-convergence can result for another reason. Often there are different functional ways to adapt to an environmental condition. As an example, consider how potential prey species may adapt to the presence of a predator such as lions. One option is to evolve great sprinting ability to outrun them, but there are other options, too, like camouflage,
***
" We all knew about convergence as a neat trick of natural history, a striking example of the power of natural selection. But Conway Morris and company have made clear that evolutionary duplication is much, much more common than we realized. We now recognize that it’s a frequent occurrence in the natural world, with examples all around us. Still, it’s far from ubiquitous.
"Seemingly just as often, maybe more often, species living in similar environments don’t adapt convergently. We need to go beyond documenting the historical pattern, chronicling yet more examples pro and con. Rather, we need to ask whether we can understand why convergence occurs in some cases and not others—what explains the extent to which convergence does or doesn’t occur."
Comment: The author makes an interesting point. Convergence exists, but it is not just a response to environmental challenges, and many look-alikes are not convergent. The process of evolution is very inventive as this illustrates.
Revisiting convergence: a new view
by dhw, Friday, September 15, 2017, 13:38 (2625 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Real convergence does occur but why are there 'one-offs'?
http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/why-hasnt-evolution-made-another-platypus?utm_source...
DAVID’s comment: The author makes an interesting point. Convergence exists, but it is not just a response to environmental challenges, and many look-alikes are not convergent. The process of evolution is very inventive as this illustrates.
It’s amazing how words take on a life and identity of their own. It’s not evolution or convergence that invents different solutions – it’s organisms (unless you think your God preprogrammes or dabbles each and every one). I just can’t see the problem, I’m afraid, other than the author’s difficulty in deciding what does and doesn’t constitute convergence. “One-offs” are just that. Some organisms think differently. Some organisms think alike. But each one copes with its environment in its own way, and so there are lots of variations even where there is convergence, but also where there is non-convergence among look-alikes. I can’t see any mystery once one accepts common descent and the fact that change comes from organisms themselves, and they are all individuals. (Of course that idea does not in any way exclude your God, who would have given them the intelligence to evolve in their own way.)
Revisiting convergence: a new view
by David Turell , Friday, September 15, 2017, 15:34 (2625 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Real convergence does occur but why are there 'one-offs'?
http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/why-hasnt-evolution-made-another-platypus?utm_source...DAVID’s comment: The author makes an interesting point. Convergence exists, but it is not just a response to environmental challenges, and many look-alikes are not convergent. The process of evolution is very inventive as this illustrates.
dhw: It’s amazing how words take on a life and identity of their own. It’s not evolution or convergence that invents different solutions – it’s organisms (unless you think your God preprogrammes or dabbles each and every one). I just can’t see the problem, I’m afraid, other than the author’s difficulty in deciding what does and doesn’t constitute convergence. “One-offs” are just that. Some organisms think differently. Some organisms think alike. But each one copes with its environment in its own way, and so there are lots of variations even where there is convergence, but also where there is non-convergence among look-alikes. I can’t see any mystery once one accepts common descent and the fact that change comes from organisms themselves, and they are all individuals. (Of course that idea does not in any way exclude your God, who would have given them the intelligence to evolve in their own way.)
What do you mean by stating that 'organisms think'? They think and adapt? I was presenting the article as recognizing the amazing bush of life. Conway Morris thinks convergence supports his concept of God.
Revisiting convergence: a new view
by dhw, Saturday, September 16, 2017, 13:07 (2624 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Real convergence does occur but why are there 'one-offs'?
http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/why-hasnt-evolution-made-another-platypus?utm_source...
DAVID’s comment: The author makes an interesting point. Convergence exists, but it is not just a response to environmental challenges, and many look-alikes are not convergent. The process of evolution is very inventive as this illustrates.
dhw: It’s amazing how words take on a life and identity of their own. It’s not evolution or convergence that invents different solutions – it’s organisms (unless you think your God preprogrammes or dabbles each and every one). I just can’t see the problem, I’m afraid, other than the author’s difficulty in deciding what does and doesn’t constitute convergence. “One-offs” are just that. Some organisms think differently. Some organisms think alike. But each one copes with its environment in its own way, and so there are lots of variations even where there is convergence, but also where there is non-convergence among look-alikes. I can’t see any mystery once one accepts common descent and the fact that change comes from organisms themselves, and they are all individuals. (Of course that idea does not in any way exclude your God, who would have given them the intelligence to evolve in their own way.)
DAVID: What do you mean by stating that 'organisms think'? They think and adapt?
Yes. We know that large organisms think in the sense that they are sentient, process information, take decisions, use reason to solve problems etc. – all of which are attributes of “thought”. Some scientists believe that small organisms do the same. And yes, I am suggesting that the cell communities that combine to form every organism, large or small, are responsible for working out how to adapt. Bacteria do it all the time, although you seem to believe your God preprogrammed all their adaptations 3.8 billion years ago.
Revisiting convergence: a new view
by David Turell , Sunday, September 17, 2017, 00:41 (2624 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Real convergence does occur but why are there 'one-offs'?
http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/why-hasnt-evolution-made-another-platypus?utm_source...DAVID’s comment: The author makes an interesting point. Convergence exists, but it is not just a response to environmental challenges, and many look-alikes are not convergent. The process of evolution is very inventive as this illustrates.
dhw: It’s amazing how words take on a life and identity of their own. It’s not evolution or convergence that invents different solutions – it’s organisms (unless you think your God preprogrammes or dabbles each and every one). I just can’t see the problem, I’m afraid, other than the author’s difficulty in deciding what does and doesn’t constitute convergence. “One-offs” are just that. Some organisms think differently. Some organisms think alike. But each one copes with its environment in its own way, and so there are lots of variations even where there is convergence, but also where there is non-convergence among look-alikes. I can’t see any mystery once one accepts common descent and the fact that change comes from organisms themselves, and they are all individuals. (Of course that idea does not in any way exclude your God, who would have given them the intelligence to evolve in their own way.)
DAVID: What do you mean by stating that 'organisms think'? They think and adapt?
dhw: Yes. We know that large organisms think in the sense that they are sentient, process information, take decisions, use reason to solve problems etc. – all of which are attributes of “thought”. Some scientists believe that small organisms do the same. And yes, I am suggesting that the cell communities that combine to form every organism, large or small, are responsible for working out how to adapt. Bacteria do it all the time, although you seem to believe your God preprogrammed all their adaptations 3.8 billion years ago.
And I think foresight and mental planning are required for speciation. A designer is required and no existing species we know of, including humans with their giant brain, can do it. Yes, we see adaptations of existing species, but no adaptations that can be true speciation. I firmly think speciation is God's work.
Revisiting convergence: best example
by David Turell , Saturday, December 02, 2017, 20:38 (2547 days ago) @ David Turell
Ctenophores have strange neurons. Not like any others:
https://aeon.co/essays/what-the-ctenophore-says-about-the-evolution-of-intelligence?utm...
"If Moroz is right, then the ctenophore represents an evolutionary experiment of stunning proportions, one that has been running for more than half a billion years. This separate pathway of evolution – a sort of Evolution 2.0 – has invented neurons, muscles and other specialised tissues, independently from the rest of the animal kingdom, using different starting materials.
"This animal, the ctenophore, provides clues to how evolution might have gone if not for the advent of vertebrates, mammals and humans, who came to dominate the ecosystems of Earth. It sheds light on a profound debate that has raged for decades: when it comes to the present-day face of life on Earth, how much of it happened by pure accident, and how much was inevitable from the start?
***
"Unlike the jellyfish, which uses muscles to flap its body and swim, the ctenophore uses thousands of cilia to swim. And unlike the jellyfish with its stinging tentacles, the ctenophore hunts using two sticky tentacles that secrete glue, an adaptation with no parallel in the rest of the animal kingdom.
***
"So he fetched a net and fished a dozen or so ctenophores, a species called Pleurobrachia bachei, from the water. He froze them and shipped them to his lab in Florida. Within three weeks, he had a partial ‘transcriptome’ of the ctenophore – some 5,000 or 6,000 gene sequences that were actively turned on in the animal’s nerve cells. The results were startling.
"First, they showed that Pleurobrachia lacked the genes and enzymes required to manufacture a long list of neurotransmitters widely seen in other animals. These missing neurotransmitters included not just the ones that Moroz had noted back in 1995 – serotonin, dopamine and nitric oxide – but also acetylcholine, octopamine, noradrenaline and others. The ctenophore also lacked genes for the receptors that allow a neuron to capture these neurotransmitters and respond to them.
***
"The ctenophore was turning out to be unique from other animals in far more than just its nervous system. The genes involved in development and function of its muscles were also entirely different. And the ctenophore lacked several classes of general body-patterning genes that were thought to be universal to all animals. These included so-called micro-RNA genes, which help to form specialised cell types in organs, and HOX genes, which divide bodies into separate parts, be it the segmented body of a worm or lobster, or the segmented spine and finger bones of a human. These gene classes were present in simpleton sponges and placozoa – yet absent in ctenophores.
"All of this pointed to a stunning conclusion: despite being more complex than sponges and placozoans – which lacked nerve cells and muscles and virtually every other specialised cell type – ctenophores were actually the earliest, oldest branch on the animal tree of life. Somehow over the subsequent 550 to 750 million years, the ctenophore had managed to evolve a nervous system and muscles similar in complexity to those of jellyfish, anemones, sea stars and many types of worms and shellfish, cobbled together from an alternative set of genes.
***
"Ctenophores provide an extreme, striking example of what is probably a general pattern: just as eyes, wings and fins evolved many times over the course of animal evolution, so too have nerve cells. Moroz now counts nine to 12 independent evolutionary origins of the nervous system – including at least one in cnidaria (the group that includes jellyfish and anemones), three in echinoderms (the group that includes sea stars, sea lilies, urchins and sand dollars), one in arthropods (the group that includes insects, spiders and crustaceans), one in molluscs (the group that includes clams, snails, squid and octopuses), one in vertebrates – and now, at least one in ctenophores.
"‘There is more than one way to make a neuron, more than one way to make a brain,’ says Moroz. In each of these evolutionary branches, a different subset of genes, proteins and molecules was blindly chosen, through random gene duplication and mutation, to take part in building a nervous system.
***
"The late Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued in his book Wonderful Life (1989) that accidents matter: that the evolutionary history of animals has been shaped by decimation as much as by innovation. He pointed out that the Cambrian world 570 million years ago contained more groups of animals, called phyla, than exist today. Those diverse branches in the early animal tree were steadily pruned by mass extinctions. Those extinctions fuelled evolution by opening ecological niches that surviving animal groups could diversify into – providing opportunity for innovation.
"At the same time, Simon Conway Morris, a palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, has stressed the importance of evolutionary convergence: that evolution tends to arrive at the same solutions over and over again, even in distant branches of the animal tree, and even when the proteins or genes used to build a similar structure are not themselves related.
Comment: The process of evolution is designed to innovate complexity. Convergence proves it!
Revisiting convergence: best example
by dhw, Sunday, December 03, 2017, 13:38 (2546 days ago) @ David Turell
QUOTE: ‘There is more than one way to make a neuron, more than one way to make a brain,’ says Moroz. In each of these evolutionary branches, a different subset of genes, proteins and molecules was blindly chosen, through random gene duplication and mutation, to take part in building a nervous system.'
DAVID’s comment: The process of evolution is designed to innovate complexity. Convergence proves it!
Very interesting variation. The authors say it’s all random. According to your beliefs, it’s divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sake of complexity for the sake of keeping life going for the sake of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. I suggest that it’s evidence of different cell communities devising their own different ways of survival/improvement: i.e. not random, and not for the sake of Homo sapiens.
Revisiting convergence: best example
by David Turell , Sunday, December 03, 2017, 15:50 (2546 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: ‘There is more than one way to make a neuron, more than one way to make a brain,’ says Moroz. In each of these evolutionary branches, a different subset of genes, proteins and molecules was blindly chosen, through random gene duplication and mutation, to take part in building a nervous system.'
DAVID’s comment: The process of evolution is designed to innovate complexity. Convergence proves it!
dhw: Very interesting variation. The authors say it’s all random. According to your beliefs, it’s divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sake of complexity for the sake of keeping life going for the sake of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. I suggest that it’s evidence of different cell communities devising their own different ways of survival/improvement: i.e. not random, and not for the sake of Homo sapiens.
You are sticking to your view that evolution is at random, but really not at random if cell committees do what they wish. Are the cells somehow guided? Thec authors have to say it is at random to keep their Darwin credentials.
Revisiting convergence: best example
by dhw, Monday, December 04, 2017, 13:48 (2545 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Very interesting variation. The authors say it’s all random. According to your beliefs, it’s divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sake of complexity for the sake of keeping life going for the sake of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. I suggest that it’s evidence of different cell communities devising their own different ways of survival/improvement: i.e. not random, and not for the sake of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: You are sticking to your view that evolution is at random, but really not at random if cell committees do what they wish. Are the cells somehow guided? The authors have to say it is at random to keep their Darwin credentials.
You have quoted me and then claim I say the exact opposite! So look at it again: “…different cell communities devise their own different ways of survival/improvement: i.e. not random (…). You seem to think that “random” means anything your God does not personally control! Are the cells somehow guided? Yes: you claim they were divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or divinely dabbled with, and I propose they are guided by their (perhaps God-given) autonomous intelligence in their quest for survival and/or improvement.
Revisiting convergence: best example
by David Turell , Monday, December 04, 2017, 15:14 (2545 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Very interesting variation. The authors say it’s all random. According to your beliefs, it’s divinely preprogrammed or dabbled for the sake of complexity for the sake of keeping life going for the sake of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. I suggest that it’s evidence of different cell communities devising their own different ways of survival/improvement: i.e. not random, and not for the sake of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: You are sticking to your view that evolution is at random, but really not at random if cell committees do what they wish. Are the cells somehow guided? The authors have to say it is at random to keep their Darwin credentials.
dhw: You have quoted me and then claim I say the exact opposite! So look at it again: “…different cell communities devise their own different ways of survival/improvement: i.e. not random (…). You seem to think that “random” means anything your God does not personally control! Are the cells somehow guided? Yes: you claim they were divinely preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or divinely dabbled with, and I propose they are guided by their (perhaps God-given) autonomous intelligence in their quest for survival and/or improvement.
In my view the appearance of cellular intelligent action can be from designed activties in the cell supplied by God's design. How this can be translated into cell committies designing their own future evolutionary changes is for me beyond reason. What is the source of heir intelligence? Evidence not available in science.
Revisiting convergence: scallop eyes
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 05, 2017, 14:35 (2544 days ago) @ David Turell
Amazing eyes, built like reflecting telescopes with mirrors made of minerals focusing on a two-layered retina:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/eyes-of-the-scallop
"Researchers have obtained a detailed view of a scallop’s visual system - a sophisticated arrangement of up to 200 eyes they say is strikingly similar to a reflecting telescope. Just as the complex optics of other animals, like lobsters, have informed telescope design, these results may pave the way to the construction of novel bio-inspired optical devices for imaging and sensing applications.
"Most animals use lenses to focus light onto their retina, a light-sensitive layer of tissue coating the inner portion of the eye, though certain marine organisms (including the Pecten scallop) have adopted mirrors to create images.
"Benjamin Palmer and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, investigated the complex organization of the scallop’s mirror. Using various microscopic imaging approaches, the scientists found that spatial vision in the scallop is achieved through the mirror's layered structure located at the back of each eye, which is fine-tuned to reflect wavelengths of light that penetrate its habitat.
"What’s more, the mirror is tiled with a mosaic of square-shaped crystals, minimizing surface defects for a clearer picture. The mirror forms images on a double-layered retina, to separately image both peripheral and central fields of view. The researchers note their work demonstrates the remarkable control the scallop exerts over the growth and arrangement of crystals to make a highly reflective mirror capable of forming functional images."
From the original article:
"Fine-tuned for image formation
"We typically think of eyes as having one or more lenses for focusing incoming light onto a surface such as our retina. However, light can also be focused using arrays of mirrors, as is commonly done in telescopes. A biological example of this is the scallop, which can have up to 200 reflecting eyes that focus light onto two retinas. Palmer et al. find that spatial vision in the scallop is achieved through precise control of the size, shape, and packing density of the tiles of guanine that together make up an image-forming mirror at the back of each of the eyes.
Science, this issue p. 1172
"Abstract
"Scallops possess a visual system comprising up to 200 eyes, each containing a concave mirror rather than a lens to focus light. The hierarchical organization of the multilayered mirror is controlled for image formation, from the component guanine crystals at the nanoscale to the complex three-dimensional morphology at the millimeter level. The layered structure of the mirror is tuned to reflect the wavelengths of light penetrating the scallop’s habitat and is tiled with a mosaic of square guanine crystals, which reduces optical aberrations. The mirror forms images on a double-layered retina used for separately imaging the peripheral and central fields of view. The tiled, off-axis mirror of the scallop eye bears a striking resemblance to the segmented mirrors of reflecting telescopes."
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6367/1172
Comment: An other superb example of convergence. Evolution is set up as an extremely inventive process producing advanced complexity.
Revisiting convergence: scallop eyes
by dhw, Wednesday, December 06, 2017, 13:02 (2543 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID’s comment: An other superb example of convergence. Evolution is set up as an extremely inventive process producing advanced complexity.
Thank you for yet another extraordinary example of how organisms invent their own individual organs, skills, ways of life in the never ending quest for survival and/or improvement.
Revisiting convergence: ant-ibiotics
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 01:08 (2481 days ago) @ dhw
Ants make antibiotics like molds and fungi:
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-antibiotics-ants.html
"Ants, like humans, deal with disease. To deal with the bacteria that cause some of these diseases, some ants produce their own antibiotics. A new comparative study identified some ant species that make use of powerful antimicrobial agents - but found that 40 percent of ant species tested didn't appear to produce antibiotics.
***
"'These findings suggest that ants could be a future source of new antibiotics to help fight human diseases," says Clint Penick, an assistant research professor at Arizona State University and former postdoctoral researcher at North Carolina State University who is lead author of the study.
"'One species we looked at, the thief ant (Solenopsis molesta), had the most powerful antibiotic effect of any species we tested - and until now, no one had even shown that they made use of antimicrobials," says Adrian Smith, co-author of the paper.
***
" The researchers found that 12 of the 20 ant species had some sort of antimicrobial agent on their exoskeletons - including some species, like the thief ant, that hadn't previously been shown to do so. But eight of the ant species seemed not to make use of antibiotics at all. Or, at least, any antimicrobials on their exoskeletons were ineffective against the bacteria used in the study.
"'We thought every ant species would produce at least some type of antimicrobial," Penick says. "Instead, it seems like many species have found alternative ways to prevent infection that do not rely on antimicrobial chemicals."
"'The fact that not all ants use antimicrobials highlights the importance of refining our search for species that actually do hold promise for biomedical research," Smith says.
"For example, the thief ant is closely related to the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), which is well known for the antimicrobial properties of its venom. But in our study, we found that the thief ant was even more effective against bacteria than the fire ant. There may be other species in the same genus that are worth studying for their antimicrobial potency."
"The researchers caution that this study is a first step, and that this study does have limitations. For example, the researchers used only one bacterial agent in their tests, meaning it is not clear how each species would fare against other bacteria.
"'Next steps include testing ant species against other bacteria; determining what substances are producing the antibiotic effects - and whether ants produce them or obtain them elsewhere; and exploring what alternative strategies ants use to defend against bacterial pathogens," Smith says. "
Comment: Evolution uses the same solutions over and over, which supports my contention that there are basic patterns that are present from the beginning, making the process of evolution easier to accomplish. Put in place by God.
Revisiting convergence: ant-ibiotics
by dhw, Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 13:56 (2480 days ago) @ David Turell
As this has nothing to do with scallop eyes, I hope you won’t mind my giving it a new title.
DAVID’s comment: Evolution uses the same solutions over and over, which supports my contention that there are basic patterns that are present from the beginning, making the process of evolution easier to accomplish. Put in place by God.
Basic patterns are indeed the bedrock of common descent. I would argue that these medical treatments are evidence of the extraordinary intelligence of ants. This is not altogether dissimilar from that of bacteria, which are able to work out solutions to almost every problem that nature and humans can throw at them. Of course this extraordinary intelligence may originally have been “put in place by God”, allowing organisms to work out the solutions for themselves. That would certainly “make the process of evolution easier to accomplish”, rather than your God having to preprogramme or dabble all the problems and their solutions.
Revisiting convergence: ant-ibiotics
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 15:50 (2480 days ago) @ dhw
As this has nothing to do with scallop eyes, I hope you won’t mind my giving it a new title.
DAVID’s comment: Evolution uses the same solutions over and over, which supports my contention that there are basic patterns that are present from the beginning, making the process of evolution easier to accomplish. Put in place by God.
dhw: Basic patterns are indeed the bedrock of common descent. I would argue that these medical treatments are evidence of the extraordinary intelligence of ants. This is not altogether dissimilar from that of bacteria, which are able to work out solutions to almost every problem that nature and humans can throw at them. Of course this extraordinary intelligence may originally have been “put in place by God”, allowing organisms to work out the solutions for themselves. That would certainly “make the process of evolution easier to accomplish”, rather than your God having to preprogramme or dabble all the problems and their solutions.
The patterns would limit the dabbling.
Revisiting convergence: bats and dolphins
by David Turell , Sunday, February 03, 2019, 02:13 (2120 days ago) @ David Turell
Used the same genes to develop echo-location:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/09/bats-and-dolphins-evolved-echolocation-same-way
"Dolphins and bats don't have much in common, but they share a superpower: Both hunt their prey by emitting high-pitched sounds and listening for the echoes. Now, a study shows that this ability arose independently in each group of mammals from the same genetic mutations. The work suggests that evolution sometimes arrives at new traits through the same sequence of steps, even in very different animals. The research also implies that this convergent evolution is common—and hidden—within genomes, potentially complicating the task of deciphering some evolutionary relationships between organisms.
***
" in 2010, Stephen Rossiter, an evolutionary biologist at Queen Mary, University of London, and his colleagues determined that both types of echolocating bats, as well as dolphins, had the same mutations in a particular protein called prestin, which affects the sensitivity of hearing. Looking at other genes known to be involved in hearing, they and other researchers found several others whose proteins were similarly changed in these mammals.
***
"The analysis revealed that 200 genes had independently changed in the same ways, Parker, Rossiter and their colleagues report today in Nature. Several of the genes are involved in hearing, but the others have no clear link to echolocation so far; some genes with shared changes are important for vision, but most have functions that are unknown.
“The biggest surprise,” says Frédéric Delsuc, a molecular phylogeneticist at Montpellier University in France, “is probably the extent to which convergent molecular evolution seems to be widespread in the genome."
"Genomicist Todd Castoe from the University of Texas, Arlington, is also impressed: “I’m pretty convinced they are finding something real, and it’s really exciting [and] pretty important.” However, he is critical about the way the analysis was done, suggesting that the approach found only indirect evidence of molecular convergence.
"The discovery that molecular convergence can be widespread in a genome is "bittersweet,” Castoe adds. Biologists building family trees are likely being misled into suggesting that some organisms are closely related because genes and proteins are similar due to convergence, and not because the organisms had a recent common ancestor. No family trees are entirely safe from these misleading effects, Castoe says. “And we currently have no way to deal with this.'”
Comment: So convergence is a problem for research. Not if God designed and dabbled with pre-planning or control of mutations.
Revisiting convergence: making teeth, shells, claws, nails
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 23:09 (1921 days ago) @ David Turell
Appears to have developed many times in different lines of organisms:
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-biominerals-nature-recipe-evolved.html
"The materials that animals make from scratch to build protective shells, razor sharp teeth, load-bearing bones and needlelike spines are some of the hardest and most durable substances known. The recipe for making those materials was one of nature's closely held secrets, but powerful new analytical tools and microscopes have peeled back much of the mystery, showing, at the nanoscale, exactly how a wide array of animals use precisely the same mechanisms and starter chemicals to make the biomineral structures they depend on.
"Now, in a report published today (Aug. 19, 2019) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a team led by Pupa Gilbert, a University of Wisconsin–Madison professor of physics, shows that the recipe for making shells, spines, and coral skeletons is not only the same across many modern animal lineages, but is ancient—dating back 550 million years—and evolved independently more than once.
"The findings are important because they help stitch together an evolutionary narrative of biomineralization. The fuller picture of a process ubiquitous to animal life on our planet not only tells us something important about our world, but the details may one day be harnessed by humans to produce harder, lighter, more durable materials; tools that never need sharpening; more faithful biomedical implants; and the possibility of human intervention in things like rebuilding the world's coral reefs.
"'The finding that biomineralization evolved independently multiple times, using the same mechanism, tells us that there is a strong physical or chemical reason for doing so," says Gilbert, a world expert on the process of biomineralization. "If one organism starts making its biomineral that way, it outcompetes all others that either don't make biomineral or make them differently, it doesn't get eaten, and gets to transmit that good idea down the lineage.'"
"The new PNAS report builds on a series of seminal discoveries by Gilbert and her colleagues. In past studies, the Wisconsin physicist has shown that the process of biomineralizations works the same in vastly different classes of animals, ranging from mollusks like abalone, to echinoderms such as sea urchins, and to cnidaria, a large group of animals that includes corals, jellyfish, and sea anemones. These phyla, or broad groups of animals, have no common ancestor that was already biomineralizing, thus they must have evolved biomineralization mechanisms independently. Therefore, Gilbert says, "it is extremely surprising that when they started biomineralizing in the Cambrian (more than 500 million years ago) these three phyla started doing it in precisely the same way: using attachment of amorphous nanoparticles.'"
Comment: Another example of God using patterns of development in managing evolution
Revisiting convergence: making teeth, shells, claws, nails
by dhw, Wednesday, August 21, 2019, 11:45 (1920 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Appears to have developed many times in different lines of organisms:
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-biominerals-nature-recipe-evolved.html
DAVID: Another example of God using patterns of development in managing evolution.
Or another example of intelligent cells working things out in their own way, simultaneously coming up with similar solutions to similar problems, but each with their own variations to suit their particular conditions.
Revisiting convergence: making teeth, shells, claws, nails
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 21, 2019, 15:42 (1920 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Appears to have developed many times in different lines of organisms:
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-biominerals-nature-recipe-evolved.htmlDAVID: Another example of God using patterns of development in managing evolution.
dhw: Or another example of intelligent cells working things out in their own way, simultaneously coming up with similar solutions to similar problems, but each with their own variations to suit their particular conditions.
You left out your theory that God made those intelligent cells to do his work.
Revisiting convergence: making teeth, shells, claws, nails
by dhw, Thursday, August 22, 2019, 09:51 (1919 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: Appears to have developed many times in different lines of organisms:
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-biominerals-nature-recipe-evolved.html
DAVID: Another example of God using patterns of development in managing evolution.
dhw: Or another example of intelligent cells working things out in their own way, simultaneously coming up with similar solutions to similar problems, but each with their own variations to suit their particular conditions.
DAVID: You left out your theory that God made those intelligent cells to do his work.
That is not my theory. Do I have to keep repeating that I am an agnostic? The intelligent cell represents Chapter One in the history of life, and if God exists, then he designed it. The theory applies to Chapter Two, which is the history of evolution once life evolves into multicellularity, and the focus is on the work of the mechanism and not its origin.
Thank you for the other articles you have posted. As usual, I agree that chance is a very unsatisfactory explanation for the origin of such complex mechanisms. And as usual, you offer a snipe at Darwin. What a pity he never thought of the intelligent cell as a more likely source of innovation than random mutations, but 160 years ago they simply didn’t know about all the complexities of the cell, did they? However, he did forecast the opening of “a grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry…”!
Revisiting convergence: making teeth, shells, claws, nails
by David Turell , Thursday, August 22, 2019, 16:47 (1919 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Appears to have developed many times in different lines of organisms:
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-biominerals-nature-recipe-evolved.htmlDAVID: Another example of God using patterns of development in managing evolution.
dhw: Or another example of intelligent cells working things out in their own way, simultaneously coming up with similar solutions to similar problems, but each with their own variations to suit their particular conditions.
DAVID: You left out your theory that God made those intelligent cells to do his work.
dhw: That is not my theory. Do I have to keep repeating that I am an agnostic? The intelligent cell represents Chapter One in the history of life, and if God exists, then he designed it. The theory applies to Chapter Two, which is the history of evolution once life evolves into multicellularity, and the focus is on the work of the mechanism and not its origin.
Thank you for the other articles you have posted. As usual, I agree that chance is a very unsatisfactory explanation for the origin of such complex mechanisms. And as usual, you offer a snipe at Darwin. What a pity he never thought of the intelligent cell as a more likely source of innovation than random mutations, but 160 years ago they simply didn’t know about all the complexities of the cell, did they? However, he did forecast the opening of “a grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry…”!
My snipe is at the current Darwinists who try to support his theories.
Revisiting convergence: making teeth, shells, claws, nails
by dhw, Friday, August 23, 2019, 07:31 (1919 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: Thank you for the other articles you have posted. As usual, I agree that chance is a very unsatisfactory explanation for the origin of such complex mechanisms. And as usual, you offer a snipe at Darwin. What a pity he never thought of the intelligent cell as a more likely source of innovation than random mutations, but 160 years ago they simply didn’t know about all the complexities of the cell, did they? However, he did forecast the opening of “a grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry…”!
DAVID: My snipe is at the current Darwinists who try to support his theories.
You actually wrote: “Not by Darwin”, but thank you for this correction. It is a constant source of irritation that both atheists and theists try to distort (not support) the theories of the agnostic Darwin!
Revisiting convergence: butterfly wing designs
by David Turell , Monday, November 18, 2019, 23:58 (1831 days ago) @ dhw
Same design but different genes!:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/what-butterflies-colorful-wing-p...
"Wings start out as wing disks towards the end of the caterpillar stage of metamorphosis. Pre-patterning genes like wntA activate and communicate with different molecules and genes, more or less outlining the master plan for wing pattern. Eventually, these signals determine the identity and position of each wing scale, which develop colorless in the chrysalis at first before pigments get made. (Yellow, white and red are the first colors to emerge; black and darker pigments appear later.)
***
"By disrupting the wntA gene in the mutant butterflies, researchers wanted to see how wing pattern changed. If two different species with mirror-image wings under normal conditions both had the gene knocked out, would the mutated patterns look similar across species, or would the genetic mutation lead to different end results for separate species?
"As it turned out, diverse species responded differently to the deactivated gene. Scientists noticed what Concha describes as “a boundary shifting,” often color bleeding into areas that had previously been black. Normally, Heliconius hewitsoni and Heliconius pachinus, whose habitats overlap in western Costa Rica and Panama, share three yellowish-white stripes and a central flare of red. But in the wntA mutants, H. hewitsoni had off-white coloring spread almost throughout its forewing and developed a patch of gray in its hindwing. H. pachinus, in contrast, still had a bold black stripe through its forewing and no gray.
"The discrepancy told the scientists that wntA has evolved to act differently in these distantly related species. If evolution is a maze where the exit is optimal survival, it’s like the species figured out two separate twisting-turning pathways through the genetic labyrinth to arrive at the same color pattern—a result Concha calls “a bit unexpected.” “People would more frequently expect that they would share a common pathway,” she says, especially because these creative genetic pathways cropped up in a relatively short time span; the species diverged between 14 and 10 million years ago.
"The researchers then zoomed in, using a microscope that creates close-ups 15,000 times bigger than their actual size, to look at the texture of individual scales. Different color scales have unique topography, and this closer look confirmed, Concha says, “the gene is controlling the identity of that scale.”
"In these particular butterflies, evolution had happened more speedily and less predictably than scientists tend to expect. In the Current Biology paper, Concha and her co-authors note that evolution is too complicated for generalizations. Still, she says, if evolution took two starkly different paths to pattern near-identical butterfly wings, “It could happen more than we think.”
Comment: In convergence different genes can be used to cause the same result. It must be in how the individual butterfly type expresses the gene. Perhaps a designer is at work?
Revisiting convergence: using teeth
by David Turell , Saturday, November 28, 2020, 22:11 (1455 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study in vertebrates finds identical evolution in different environments:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201123085322.htm
"Palaeontologists at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and the University of Calgary in Canada have provided new proof of parallel evolution: conodonts, early vertebrates from the Permian period, adapted to new habitats in almost identical ways despite living in different geographical regions. The researchers were able to prove that this was the case using fossil teeth found in different geographical locations.
***
"Emilia Jarochowska's research focuses on evolution in different ecosystems, but rather than studying animals which are still alive today she concentrates on conodonts, organisms which lived in the sea approximately 500 to 200 million years ago and were one of the first vertebrates. The cone-shaped teeth of the eel-like organisms can still be found as micro fossils in sedimentary rocks across the globe. Scientists estimate that there were roughly 3000 different species of conodonts. 'Scientists have suspected for several years now that a certain subspecies known as Conodont Sweetognathus developed several parallel evolutionary adaptations,'
***
"'As we now have such a good knowledge of tectonics over the history of the Earth, we can rule out the possibility that organisms from these regions were ever in contact with each other.'
***
"The painstaking analysis of the morphologies in the dental elements confirmed what scientists have suspected for years: Conodont Sweetognathus adapted repeatedly in response to different food sources after emigrating to new habitats in an almost identical fashion in spite of these habitats being isolated from each other. Comparing samples from a large number of fossils over a number of years has now allowed researchers to confirm without a doubt that the teeth found in Bolivia and Russia come from organisms with a common ancestor. 'We were able to prove that two lineages of Sweetognathus in two different parts of the world followed the same developmental pattern,' Emilia Jarochowska explains. 'That is further proof for the theory of evolution -- and for the effectiveness of international collaboration.'"
Comment: I'm not sure the conclusion is correct. Plate tectonics say they were separated on different plates. Shouldn't this be simple convergence, that is parallel similar development in separate places? Conway-Morris uses convergence to point to God as the designer.
Revisiting convergence: whale epiglottis-like organ
by David Turell , Thursday, January 20, 2022, 18:38 (1037 days ago) @ David Turell
Whales that gulp huge amounts of sea water block lungs from water:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fin-whale-eat-choke-baleen-oral-plug-muscle-fat
"Some of the world’s largest whales feed by lunging through the water with mouths wide open. Scientists have long wondered how the animals withstand the tremendous pressure of water rushing into their throats without choking and drowning.
"A plug made of muscle and fat found at the back of fin whales’ mouths might offer a clue. The plug blocks the channel between a fin whale’s mouth and its pharynx, the entrance to the respiratory and digestive tracts. The plug appears to prevent water from rushing into the whale’s lungs and stomach while it lunges and could explain how all lunge-feeding whale eat without choking, researchers report January 20 in Current Biology.
“'Think of [the plug] as a trapdoor,” says Kelsey Gil, a marine biologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “It’s always closed unless muscular activity pulls it out of the way.”
***
"When a whale gulps water, the pressure leads to the plug creating a tight seal over the whale’s pharynx. Then, with a mouth full of water and prey, a fin whale pushes the water out through its baleen plates before it swallows. The swallow reflex probably activates the muscle that pulls the plug up to the top of its throat, blocking the upper airways and letting prey slide into its digestive tract. The plug, which appears to be unique among mammals, may explain how other lunge-feeders eat without choking on water, the scientists say.
“'The discovery of the ‘oral plug’ answers a long-standing question about how whales can simultaneously protect their respiratory tract while opening their mouths wide to engulf prey-laden water,” says Sarah Fortune, an expert in large whales at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia,..."
Comment: An obvious arrangement designed when these whales first appeared in evolution. They could not plunge/gulp feed without it. Imagine trying to gulp feed without it.
Revisiting convergence: katydid hearing
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 14, 2023, 17:07 (374 days ago) @ David Turell
Mimics ours:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(23)01441-0?dgcid=raven_jbs_aip...
"Hearing has evolved independently many times in the animal kingdom and is prominent in various insects and vertebrates for conspecific communication and predator detection. Among insects, katydid (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) ears are unique, as they have evolved outer, middle, and inner ear components, analogous in their biophysical principles to the mammalian ear. The katydid ear consists of two paired tympana located in each foreleg. These tympana receive sound externally on the tympanum surface (usually via pinnae) or internally via an ear canal (EC). The EC functions to capture conspecific calls and low frequencies, while the pinnae passively amplify higher-frequency ultrasounds including bat echolocation. Together, these outer ear components provide enhanced hearing sensitivity across a dynamic range of over 100 kHz. However, despite a growing understanding of the biophysics and function of the katydid ear, its precise emergence and evolutionary history remains elusive. Here, using microcomputed tomography (μCT) scanning, we recovered geometries of the outer ear components and wings of an exceptionally well-preserved katydid fossilized in Baltic amber (∼44 million years [Ma]). Using numerical and theoretical modeling of the wings, we show that this species was communicating at a peak frequency of 31.62 (± 2.27) kHz, and we demonstrate that the ear was biophysically tuned to this signal and to providing hearing at higher-frequency ultrasounds (>80 kHz), likely for enhanced predator detection. The results indicate that the evolution of the unique ear of the katydid, with its broadband ultrasonic sensitivity and analogous biophysical properties to the ears of mammals, emerged in the Eocene.
***
"In light of recent evidence supporting a theory of an arms race between the ancestral katydid lineage and mammalian acoustics, it seems increasingly likely that there have been unique long acoustic interactions between orthopteran and mammalian lineages through time. This arms race may have started through katydids increasing their acoustic signal frequencies beyond the predator upper hearing limit and the predators evolving ears that are more capable of higher-frequency eavesdropping.
***
"This fossil supports these predictions of bat echolocation frequency, as E. handlirschi shows no acoustic pinnae adaptations to bat detection above 80 kHz, but it could certainly detect this modern bat common ancestor through its ECs [ear canals]. Importantly, this early bat predator could also hear E. handlirschi for predation. The sophisticated katydid ear with its cochlea-like anatomy was established at this time (as evidenced in this report, indicating that discrimination between conspecific and predator ultrasounds occurred through tonotopically organized auditory sensilla and traveling waves for frequency mapping."
Comment: more evidence that evolution always reaches the same solutions in design, in this case ultrasounds and echolocation. again, evidence for a designing mind.