Weird animal forms (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, May 17, 2016, 23:17 (3458 days ago)
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, May 17, 2016, 23:38
Since we are discussing how evolution develops lifestyles and oddball results of innovation I've brought up the 8-9 steps to whales, which makes no sense as evolutionary improvements, since in my view all it does is create complexities of how to solve the problems of mammals in water. This article, while looking at the genetics that might have created them, also discusses the many physical adaptations that come with the giraffe:- http://phys.org/news/2016-05-giraffe-neck-clues-revealed-genome.html- "The giraffe's stature, dominated by its long neck and legs and an overall height that can reach 19 feet (~ 6 m), is an extraordinary feat of evolution that has inspired awe and wonder for at least 8,000 years-***-"The evolutionary changes required to build the giraffe's imposing structure and to equip it with the necessary modifications for its high-speed sprinting and powerful cardiovascular functions have remained a source of scientific mystery since the 1800s, when Charles Darwin first puzzled over the giraffe's evolutionary origins," - The giraffe's heart, for example, must pump blood two meters straight up in order to provide an ample blood supply to its brain. This feat is possible because the giraffe's heart has evolved to have an unusually large left ventricle, and the species also has blood pressure that is twice as high as other mammals..... [one of the] giraffe's unique characteristics, including sprints that can reach 37 miles per hour (60 km/h).-***-"The giraffe has an unusual diet of acacia leaves and seedpods, which are highly nutritious but also are toxic to other animals. The scientists speculate that the genes responsible for metabolizing acacia leaves may have evolved in the giraffe in order to circumvent this toxicity."-***-More about the weirdness of giraffes:-https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19135-zoologger-how-did-the-giraffe-get-its-long-neck/-"Around 15 million years ago, antelope-like animals were roaming the dry grasslands of Africa. There was nothing very special about them, but some of their necks were a bit long.-"Within a mere 6 million years, they had evolved into animals that looked like modern giraffes, though the modern species only turned up around 1 million years ago. The tallest living land animal, a giraffe stands between 4.5 and 5 metres tall - and almost half that height is neck. "Most people assume that giraffes' long necks evolved to help them feed. If you have a long neck, runs the argument, you can eat leaves on tall trees that your rivals can't reach. But there is another possibility. The prodigious necks may have little to do with food, and everything to do with sex.-"The evidence supporting the high-feeding theory is surprisingly weak. Giraffes in South Africa do spend a lot of time browsing for food high up in trees, but elsewhere in Africa they don't seem to bother, even when food is scarce.-"Male giraffes fight for females by “necking”. They stand side by side and swing the backs of their heads into each others' ribs and legs. To help with this, their skulls are unusually thick and they have horn-like growths called ossicones on the tops of their heads. Their heads, in short, are battering rams, and are quite capable of breaking their opponents' bones."-Comment: Tell me this developed as a drive for improvement. Rubbish. The physiology of mammals shows us that high blood pressure causes hardening of arteries, damages kidneys, results in stokes, in heart failure, etc. The giraffe has modifications so none of this happens. Also other modifications protect it from poisonous acacia leaves. Its tongue is thicker than shoe leather to protect it from acacia thorns. (I've actually felt a tongue while feeding one in Kenya). There is lots of nutritious vegetation in Africa. Why all this bother. And their thick skulls batter other males, I'm sure without concussions. Not all evolution is obvious improvement, but instead a built in structural inventiveness, which doesn't seem to account for the physical complications as deterrents.
Weird animal forms
DAVID: Since we are discussing how evolution develops lifestyles and oddball results of innovation I've brought up the 8-9 steps to whales, which makes no sense as evolutionary improvements, since in my view all it does is create complexities of how to solve the problems of mammals in water.-As always we can only speculate, but if there is a problem which needs to be solved, the solution is an improvement! Whales started as land mammals, so maybe where their ancestors lived, food was more abundant in the water. Every subsequent stage in their evolution may have resulted from different adjustments to aquatic conditions. Each change would have taken place in existing specimens, and if the changes were useful/advantageous under the conditions that existed at the time, they would have survived, and the earlier form would presumably have died out. Isn't all that a reasonable hypothesis? Problem-solving, useful, advantageous - don't these all suggest improvement? I really can't believe that organisms would decide to become more complex just for the sake of complexity. -DAVID: This article, while looking at the genetics that might have created them, also discusses the many physical adaptations that come with the giraffe:-http://phys.org/news/2016-05-giraffe-neck-clues-revealed-genome.html-QUOTE: Most people assume that giraffes' long necks evolved to help them feed. If you have a long neck, runs the argument, you can eat leaves on tall trees that your rivals can't reach. But there is another possibility. The prodigious necks may have little to do with food, and everything to do with sex. "The evidence supporting the high-feeding theory is surprisingly weak. Giraffes in South Africa do spend a lot of time browsing for food high up in trees, but elsewhere in Africa they don't seem to bother, even when food is scarce.-Again we can only speculate, but does anyone know precisely what the conditions were when the giraffe first evolved its long neck? Is it not possible that in a particular region at a particular time, food became scarce and it was advantageous to reach higher? Once a structural change has taken place, there is no reason for it to die out unless it proves disadvantageous. There is certainly no point in using current conditions as a yardstick. Organisms will take whatever food is available at the time, high or low. -QUOTE: "Male giraffes fight for females by “necking”. They stand side by side and swing the backs of their heads into each others' ribs and legs. To help with this, their skulls are unusually thick and they have horn-like growths called ossicones on the tops of their heads. Their heads, in short, are battering rams, and are quite capable of breaking their opponents' bones."-I'm afraid I can't take this seriously as a motive for innovation. Their ancestors managed to mate without long necks, and there is no reason to assume the males didn't fight. So why on earth would the males evolve long necks just in order to fight one another? -David's comment: Tell me this developed as a drive for improvement. Rubbish. The physiology of mammals shows us that high blood pressure causes hardening of arteries, damages kidneys, results in stokes, in heart failure, etc. The giraffe has modifications so none of this happens. Also other modifications protect it from poisonous acacia leaves. Its tongue is thicker than shoe leather to protect it from acacia thorns. (I've actually felt a tongue while feeding one in Kenya). There is lots of nutritious vegetation in Africa. Why all this bother. And their thick skulls batter other males, I'm sure without concussions. Not all evolution is obvious improvement, but instead a built in structural inventiveness, which doesn't seem to account for the physical complications as deterrents.-If it's that disadvantageous and dangerous, why do you think the phenotype complexification mechanism bothered to invent it in the first place? As above, does it really make sense that organisms should invent new complexities, or your God should dabble, just for the sake of complexity? Even with your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, what possible advantage can it be to humans to have pre-giraffes reorganizing themselves so they can have long necks? Doesn't the conventional view make more sense: that at some time in some place conditions were such that a longer neck made it easier for the pre-giraffe to get food (THAT would be the improvement), and the cell communities cooperated under the instructions of the phenotype complexification mechanism aka autonomous inventive mechanism aka intelligence to make all the other adjustments necessary?
Weird animal forms
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 18, 2016, 21:13 (3457 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As always we can only speculate, but if there is a problem which needs to be solved, the solution is an improvement! Whales started as land mammals, so maybe where their ancestors lived, food was more abundant in the water. Every subsequent stage in their evolution may have resulted from different adjustments to aquatic conditions.-Your flights of fanciful explanations are wonderful just-so stories. Were pre-whales so isolated they couldn't migrate to find land food. They were trapped on an island! Or maybe you'll tell me they liked swimming so much they just decided to stay in the water and self-invent all their complex physiologic adaptations. Phew! -> dhw:I really can't believe that organisms would decide to become more complex just for the sake of complexity. -Remember the organism are given a complexification mechanism which makes them more complex. It is NOT under their control per my thesis. > > DAVID: This article, while looking at the genetics that might have created them, also discusses the many physical adaptations that come with the giraffe:-> > dhw: Again we can only speculate, but does anyone know precisely what the conditions were when the giraffe first evolved its long neck? Is it not possible that in a particular region at a particular time, food became scarce and it was advantageous to reach higher? ...Organisms will take whatever food is available at the time, high or low.-What happened to the ability to move and migrate. How long do you think it took for the neck to elongate out of need? Were they trapped with only tall trees around?-> dhw: I'm afraid I can't take this seriously as a motive for innovation. Their ancestors managed to mate without long necks, and there is no reason to assume the males didn't fight. So why on earth would the males evolve long necks just in order to fight one another? -You skipped the point that their skull bones are thicker. This suggests the change is purposeful.-> David: Not all evolution is obvious improvement, but instead a built in structural inventiveness, which doesn't seem to account for the physical complications as deterrents.[/i] > > dhw: If it's that disadvantageous and dangerous, why do you think the phenotype complexification mechanism bothered to invent it in the first place?-Just for the sake of complexity, for the purpose of complexity, from which the most advantageous will then fight to survive. It is a drive to complexity (my first book). It is an extension of the structuralism theory.- > dhw: As above, does it really make sense that organisms should invent new complexities, or your God should dabble, just for the sake of complexity? Even with your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, what possible advantage can it be to humans to have pre-giraffes reorganizing themselves so they can have long necks?-Why relate the two events? I don't. why not look at the odd-ball species as aberrant attempts at complexity which really are side channels to evolution, resulting in the weird bush of life.-> dhw: Doesn't the conventional view make more sense: that at some time in some place conditions were such that a longer neck made it easier for the pre-giraffe to get food (THAT would be the improvement)....,-You sure don't want to give up on Darwin and the drive for improvement implicit in his dependence on natural selection. Look at it from structuralism theory which happens to have been developed before Darwin arrived on the scene. I think Denton is on to something.
Weird animal forms
dhw: As always we can only speculate, but if there is a problem which needs to be solved, the solution is an improvement! Whales started as land mammals, so maybe where their ancestors lived, food was more abundant in the water. Every subsequent stage in their evolution may have resulted from different adjustments to aquatic conditions. DAVID: Your flights of fanciful explanations are wonderful just-so stories. Were pre-whales so isolated they couldn't migrate to find land food. They were trapped on an island! Or maybe you'll tell me they liked swimming so much they just decided to stay in the water and self-invent all their complex physiologic adaptations. Phew! I am not alone in my flights of fancy. A quick Google brings up the following:-	Whale Evolution - How Whales Work | HowStuffWorks animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/whale1.htm-QUOTE: “Why would a land mammal, specifically adapted for life on solid ground, evolve into a sea creature, spending much of its time away from air and sunlight? The best guess is that the whale's ancestors simply went where the food was. The ocean is filled with a wide variety of fish and crustaceans, while food along the coast can be scarce. Most likely, whale ancestors first ventured into the water to take advantage of this bounty.” -dhw: I really can't believe that organisms would decide to become more complex just for the sake of complexity. DAVID: Remember the organism are given a complexification mechanism which makes them more complex. It is NOT under their control per my thesis.-So your explanation for land mammals taking to the oceans is…God took control and made them go into the water because...he wanted to make them more complex. Why? Your previous explanation has been in order to balance nature so that humans could arrive and be fed. But there is a new one coming up a bit later. First, let's turn to the giraffe
hw: Is it not possible that in a particular region at a particular time, food became scarce and it was advantageous to reach higher? DAVID: What happened to the ability to move and migrate. How long do you think it took for the neck to elongate out of need? Were they trapped with only tall trees around?-As usual, you ask me to solve a mystery nobody else has solved. The ability to get to food is one theory. Let's deal with the sex theory next: -Dhw: ...why on earth would the males evolve long necks just in order to fight one another? DAVID: You skipped the point that their skull bones are thicker. This suggests the change is purposeful.-If the pre-giraffes fought to get mates, and the longer neck made the skull more vulnerable, either the cell communities would make the necessary changes or the giraffes would smash each other's heads in. Whenever there is a change, the rest of the body's cell communities must cooperate to incorporate the change. Now let's get to your own thesis:-dhw: If it's that disadvantageous and dangerous, why do you think the phenotype complexification mechanism bothered to invent it in the first place?-DAVID: Just for the sake of complexity, for the purpose of complexity, from which the most advantageous will then fight to survive. It is a drive to complexity (my first book). It is an extension of the structuralism theory.-So God, who is in control, deliberately “guides” all these different organisms like giraffes and whales just so that they can be more complex and fight it out among themselves to see whose complexities will survive. Apart from God's control, this is Darwin's natural selection and survival of the fittest. Next:-dhw: Even with your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution, what possible advantage can it be to humans to have pre-giraffes reorganizing themselves so they can have long necks? DAVID: Why relate the two events? I don't. why not look at the odd-ball species as aberrant attempts at complexity which really are side channels to evolution, resulting in the weird bush of life.-Whenever I have asked you to explain the reason for the bush, it has been the balance of nature, to pave the way for God's purpose of producing and feeding humans. If you stand by that, then my question is fair. If you've given up on that thesis, in favour of complexity for its own sake, so organisms can fight it out in a Darwinian free-for-all for survival, I shan't complain. But are you really saying now that God, who according to you is in control, makes aberrant attempts? Why are they aberrant? Why are they side channels? Aberrant and side from what? Why can't they exist in their own right? The weird bush of life is very simply explained if one allows for organisms pursuing their OWN paths to survival and/or improvement. DAVID: Look at it from structuralism theory... I think Denton is on to something. I'm afraid I don't understand how Denton's structuralism, with its "natural laws" and patterns, explains why pre-whales took to water and the pre-giraffe grew a long neck.
Weird animal forms
by David Turell , Thursday, May 19, 2016, 23:08 (3456 days ago) @ dhw
Davhd: why not look at the odd-ball species as aberrant attempts at complexity which really are side channels to evolution, resulting in the weird bush of life.[/i] > > dhw: Whenever I have asked you to explain the reason for the bush, it has been the balance of nature, to pave the way for God's purpose of producing and feeding humans. If you stand by that, then my question is fair. If you've given up on that thesis, in favour of complexity for its own sake, so organisms can fight it out in a Darwinian free-for-all for survival, I shan't complain.....The weird bush of life is very simply explained if one allows for organisms pursuing their OWN paths to survival and/or improvement.-Nature is in balance at all times, and supplies energy so life can continue. The weird bush is the result of increasing complexity. That is obvious from what we see evolution producing. You have your approach to how the complexity happens, I have mine. I don't think we will bridge the gap. > > DAVID: Look at it from structuralism theory... I think Denton is on to something. > > dhw: I'm afraid I don't understand how Denton's structuralism, with its "natural laws" and patterns, explains why pre-whales took to water and the pre-giraffe grew a long neck.-All I can guess, if one starts with basic structural patterns, and adds a drive to complexity, anything can appear and does, and provides a balance of nature.
Weird animal forms: a new domain of life
by David Turell , Friday, December 14, 2018, 19:30 (2517 days ago) @ David Turell
Ac whole new branch has turned up, and it is weird:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-a-newfound-kingdom-means-for-the-tree-of-life-20181...
"The tree of life just got another major branch. Researchers recently found a certain rare and mysterious microbe called a hemimastigote in a clump of Nova Scotian soil. Their subsequent analysis of its DNA revealed that it was neither animal, plant, fungus nor any recognized type of protozoan — that it in fact fell far outside any of the known large categories for classifying complex forms of life (eukaryotes). Instead, this flagella-waving oddball stands as the first member of its own “supra-kingdom” group, which probably peeled away from the other big branches of life at least a billion years ago.
***
"Hemimastigotes represent one of a handful of Rumsfeldian “known unknown” protist lineages — moderately well-described groups whose positions on the tree of life are not precisely known because they are difficult to culture in a lab and sequence. Protistologists have used peculiarities of hemimastigotes’ structure to infer their close relatives, but their guesses were “‘shotgunned’ all over the phylogeny,” Simpson said. Without molecular data, lineages like hemimastigotes remain orphans of unknown ancestry.
"But a new method called single-cell transcriptomics has revolutionized such studies. It enables researchers to sequence large numbers of genes from just one cell. Gordon Lax, another graduate student in the Simpson lab and an expert on this method, explained that for hard-to-study organisms like hemimastigotes, single-cell transcriptomics can produce genetic data of a quality previously reserved for more abundant cells, making deeper genomic comparisons finally possible.
***
"Finding a lineage as distinct as hemimastigotes is still relatively rare. But if you go down a level or two on the hierarchy, to the mere kingdom level — the one that encompasses, say, all animals — you find that new major lineages are popping up about once a year. “That rate isn’t slowing down,” said Simpson. “If anything, it might be speeding up.'”
Comment: The branch keeps enlarging.
Weird animal forms: possible first animal
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 23, 2019, 19:52 (2477 days ago) @ David Turell
It was found to have cholesterol, an animal protein:
https://bgr.com/2018/09/20/dickinsonia-plant-or-animal-study-research/
"Dickinsonia lived over half a billion years ago, back when plants and animals were really nothing like they are today. Many of the organisms of the day were flat and ribbed and, well, boring. This makes it surprisingly hard to tell what finds in the fossil record are animals and which are plants. A new study says it’s now likely Dickinsonia was one of the earliest animals, but that’s far from a sure thing.
"To get it out of the way: Dickinsonia, if it was indeed an animal, would definitely be the oldest known animal on Earth. A new paper published in Science focuses on one particular Dickinsonia fossil that was analyzed in depth. In the fossil the researchers discovered something surprising: cholesterol. Tiny molecules of cholesterol were found in the fossil and, the researchers believe, it’s all the proof we need to declare the organism to be a true animal rather than a plant or fungus.
“"The fossil fat molecules that we’ve found prove that animals were large and abundant 558 million years ago, millions of years earlier than previously thought,” associate professor Jochen Brocks of the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences said in a statement.
“'Scientists have been fighting for more than 75 years over what Dickinsonia and other bizarre fossils of the Edicaran Biota were: giant single-celled amoeba, lichen, failed experiments of evolution or the earliest animals on Earth. The fossil fat now confirms Dickinsonia as the oldest known animal fossil, solving a decades-old mystery that has been the Holy Grail of palaeontology.'”
Comment: Animal metabolism had to appear at some ancient point around 600 million years ago.