Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, June 24, 2005

Urmetazoa rising

Nature has an interesting short review this week about the search for the urmetazoan, the last common ancestor of all animals. The search isn't for a fossil, of course, since the urmetazoan would have been minute, soft, and rather nondescript, but is instead a plunge into the genomes of extant simple forms, like choanoflagellates and sponges, to extract the common elements of their molecular circuitry. There's a brief summary of what we've learned so far, but what I found most enticing is the promise of what is to come.

Like choanoflagellates, the urmetazoan's single-celled ancestors may have used signals relayed by proteins called tyrosine kinases to sense changes in the outside world. Cell adhesion might have helped unicellular organisms to form simple colonies — colonies that may have been an intermediate step between single cells and true multicellularity. The urmetazoan may then have recruited these genes for new purposes. "Evolution is an extremely dynamic system and paradoxically a very lazy one," says palaeobiologist Simon Conway Morris at the University of Cambridge, UK, who studies the origins of metazoans. "It will co-opt whatever it can."

But this raises a puzzling question. If the toolkit was already there, why didn't animals evolve sooner? The answer seems to be that the catalyst for multicellular animal life may not have been genetic but environmental — in the form of rising global oxygen levels.

Whatever the trigger, researchers hope that the completion of the choanoflagellate genome sequence, expected later this year, will yield fresh insights into the biology of this momentous transition. Genome sequences are also expected for the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis and the simplest known living animal, Trichoplax adhaerens. Trichoplax is just two cells thick, has only four cell types and looks like a giant multicellular amoeba. Its genome promises to be the smallest of any animal yet measured and should define the minimum set of genes needed for animal life. Sea anemones, which have a more advanced body plan, could yield information on the genetic mechanisms underlying body-plan formation.

Isn't that exciting? Predictions from evolutionary biology are leading us directly to detailed analyses of the function and origin of fine details of the molecules in diverse organisms—and that is the power of good science.


Pilcher H (2005) Back to our roots. Nature 435:1022-1023.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2469/kVcQ8g6E/

Comments:
's avatar #29815: PZ Myers — 06/25  at  06:38 PM
I posted the original, and am definitely interested in the topic; I'm simply not at all interested in wasting time with a clueless, ignorant poseur like yourself.

Front-loading is an empty concept that assumes what it presumes to support, in defiance of what we actually observe in molecular biology. It's ad hoc teleology--you believe it because you want to, not because you have any evidence for it. I've found that anyone who brings it up in a positive light is pretty much clueless, and ignorable.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#29840: — 06/25  at  10:07 PM
Krauze whines about a lack of evidence of his idolatry. But like all close-minded zealots, we can expect him to be blind to his own pitiful condition. The evidence, however, is quite clear. Krauze, like Nelson Alonso and others worshippers before him, has bought into the cult of Mike Gene wholesale. His calling, y'see, is to filter news summaries of scientific research for vague signs that Julie Thomas's prophecies are being fulfilled. He then quickly writes up a short exegesis to spin the facts, ending the article with an obligatory chapter-verse citation from his idol's sacred tomes. And like a good cult follower, when so moved by such amazing revelations, he must then evangelize the good news to the poor, ignorant nonteleologists on other blogs. When rejected, he then adopts his idols' rhetorical style -- obsessing in that passive aggressive tone about what critics got wrong about what he did or didn't say, or what he did or didn't think, or motivations and blah blah blah.

The fact of the matter is that Krauze had no interpretation of the aforementioned research. He only had his idol's prophecy, and a vague argument that the research somehow fulfilled that prophecy. In fact, it required a subsequent post by Mike Gene to explain -- uh, preach -- the teleological significance of the research to Krauze. So, it begs the question -- what is Krauze doing here, telling us about something of which he has no clue, whether teleologically or non-teleologically?

Look, Krauze, I don't give two licks of the Designer's tongue what you guys call yourself ... scientific creationist or intelligent design evolutionist or teleological materialist, or whatever contrived contradictory nonsense that you pretend to be. Labels won't get you guys the scientific legitimacy that you so crave. Bashing arch-atheists-evolutionists won't do it either. And, oh, neither is "interpreting" scientific data from your armchair. But you already knew that.

Let me give you my first piece of advice: for your next blog entry, you should write about all the hard work that you wish the nonteleolgists would do for you to establish "front-loading" as a scientific theory. I look forward to it.



's avatar #29846: — 06/25  at  11:46 PM
Hola Krauze,
"The thought of God manipulating molecules is unnecessary and infantile."You're entitled to your theological views, but I don't share them.
I dont believe in the existence of God. How can I have theological views? I read carefully Mike Gene's reflections and still cant see anything supernatural in action. On the contrary, it is the same old stuff of trying to explain phenomena not yet understood by science as the work of some Supreme Being. Now that the oracles of the Pythia have been explained (hydrocarbon emanations from the aquifer), we have Mike Gene reflecting on the mysteries of molecular mechanisms. I bet no God will be found manipulating or having manipulated in the past with molecules.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#30111: John Wendt — 06/28  at  06:52 AM
How does front loading mesh with Dembski's assertion that the flagellum is designed?

Front loading seems to put the design -- and implementation! -- activity at a fairly low level; but the design and implementation of the flagellum would seem to be at a higher level, a functional structure rather than a toolkit.

If "intelligent design" is to be a coherent scientific theory, these parts have to be merged, or one of them must be abandoned.



Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Next entry: But I want one, too

Previous entry: Bisonalveus browni, a venomous mammal

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college