Plant and animal development compared

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been looking for this information ever since I saw that guy last week :-)

(And thanks for putting it on You Tube as well - it will make it so much easier for me to forward this to family as well :-) )

metazoan bigot…
------------

Sweet use of technical vernacular.

Enjoy.

bigoted indeed. and eukaryocentric to boot.

:)

(I admit it, I'm a metazoan bigot…but I do try to overcome my biases),

I am disappointed that there is no comment section for Timothy Sandefeur's post, neither here nor at his own blog. Because of that, I am forced to post here, in the wrong thread.

I appreciate everyone who defends valid science.

However, doing so should not give anyone license to use this venue to advertise a particular political view without allowing comments.

If Mr Sandefeur is to be given a reward for his service to science education, it should come in the form or an award or acknowledgment, not in the form of giving him, and no-one else, license to present his political views, without possibility of reader comment.

I recognize that the immediate subject of his post is a negative review of a "libertarian" book, but the underlying assumption of the post is that libertarianism is "right" but this particular book is bad. This amounts to a rather strong advocacy position for libertarianism.

The nations with the best science and technology, the healthiest populations, the best defense of human rights, and the strongest economies, that is to say, most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, for now the United States, and scattered others, all utilize strongly-regulated market economies with strong social safety nets. No human society has ever existed which achieved these goals under "libertarianism".

Publicly funded education, the affairs of which are the very raison d'etre of this blog, was an early and valuable innovation that was strongly associated with the development of science and technology. Libertarians tend to oppose public education. I don't know if Mr Sandefeur opposes public education, or if he merely chooses to label himself as a type of political extremist who often does so.

It is most ironic that Mr Sandefeur at least creates the impression that biology, or the theory of evolution, in some way lends support to the political extremist position "libertarianism". It is transparently clear that no one political ideology can be said to be more compatible with biology or the theory of evolution than others. All political ideologies were equally created by "natural" humans.

Mr Sandefeur inaccurately associates the defense of markets with libertarianism, as if the two always went together. In fact, I am a strong advocate of markets myself, albeit with appropriate socially cooperative regulation where necessary. It is disingenuous to even suggest that support for "markets", an extraordinarily common attitude that cuts across many political viewpoints and ideologies, is exclusively or even especially the province of "libertarianism". To put it another way, almost everyone supports "markets", and most people would be appalled by the more extreme aspects of libertarianism.

It is also ironic that, given the numerous well-targeted criticisms of UD and other creationist sites, for their not allowing critical comments, Mr Sandefeur should be blithely rewarded with a comment-free bully pulpit to preach his own political extremism, at this very site. Indeed, he takes it a step further than UD. No need to delete critical comments, when comments are not allowed at all.

I support the right of anyone to hold any political beliefs they wish, independently of their correct or incorrect understanding of biological evolution. Political viewpoints are related to subjective judgments. Some scientific study of the objective measurable effects of certain types of systems is possible, but of course, it is subjective whether said effects are "good" or "bad".

Mr Sandefeur may well believe that the inevitable effects of more or less entirely eliminating the infrastructure of public health, public education, publicly funded law enforcement, publicly funded fire control, social programs for the needy, and so on, or at least of massively curtailing these cooperative institutions, would be "good", even while understanding perfectly well, perhaps at a private and secretive level, what the impact, in human suffering, would be. I would disagree that the impact of abandoning or massively curtailing all social cooperation would be "good" - and my subjective disagreement would be very, very, very, very strong indeed.

But it is this very subjectivity that must make us aware that no political viewpoint can be anointed as the "scientific" one.

However, it is worth noting that science and science education thrive almost exclusively where they are supported by tax-funded, strong, cooperative public institutions. Thus, while I cannot say that it is "unscientific" to subjectively prefer a world in which there would be few or no socially cooperative institutions, I can say that it is somewhat illogical to declare oneself an advocate of science and science education on one hand, and of "libertarianism" on the other hand. Libertarianism may not be "unscientific", but if put into practice, it would be most detrimental to the progress of science.

Let me fully clarify that I strongly support the right of libertarians to post, to draw attention to their political views where relevant, and to defend those views. I merely request that the rest of us be given the opportunity to comment, as well, if not here, then at least at the original blog. It is grossly unfair to allow advocacy one specific political ideology in a comment-free format.

Since Timothy disabled comments everywhere in the next posting, I have to comment here. I basically thank him for ripping Shermer a new one. But he and other reviewers forgot to mention one crucial point. Shermer says that free markets are good because they're "like" evolution, and evolution brings order out of chaos etc. (no, seriously, he does say a thing this silly, see http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4297 at 15:24).

The problem is... evolution does NOT produce optimal "design"! That is actually one of the points against ID - if organisms were designed, the designer must've been inept. So is this an argument FOR the free market, or, perhaps, AGAINST it?

Ah, but how do you feel about fungi? ;)

It is also ironic that, given the numerous well-targeted criticisms of UD and other creationist sites, for their not allowing critical comments, Mr Sandefeur should be blithely rewarded with a comment-free bully pulpit to preach his own political extremism, at this very site.

It is grossly unfair to allow advocacy one specific political ideology in a comment-free format.

As PT is commonly used to “preach” forms of what then must be termed religious or philosophical “extremism”, this amounts to saying that this is bad practice. I don’t think so.

stevaroni:

Ah, but how do you feel about fungi? ;)

Yummy in pepper-cream sauce, over fettuccine.

evolution brings order out of chaos

Let me fully clarify that I strongly support the right of libertarians to post, to draw attention to their political views where relevant, and to defend those views. I merely request that the rest of us be given the opportunity to comment, as well, if not here, then at least at the original blog. It is grossly unfair to allow advocacy one specific political ideology in a comment-free format.

Now a Scientific Question -

By the way, I have wanted to ask this question since I saw PZ's post on this subject, and I am not entirely thrilled that I had to fill up this comment section with protests.

The two most basic differences between plant and animal cells that I recall (*with the caveat that I am sadly another metazoan bigot who doesn't know enough about plants*) are that most plant cells have cell walls, and that many plant cells contain energy-harvesting chloroplasts.

PZ's article seems to show that the proto-plant lineage separated before chloroplasts, and that fungi, which also have cell walls (similar to those of plants?) separated from animals later.

Are there any intelligent conjectures as to how early proto-plant cells would have differed from the earliest committed animal-lineage cells?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Well, I think "chock full" is misspelled. And if it is, it seriously messes with my languages, as "shock" is "chock" in swedish but "chock" has no (non-nautical) equivalence.

PZ’s article seems to show that the proto-plant lineage separated before chloroplasts, and that fungi, which also have cell walls (similar to those of plants?) separated from animals later.

They share with animals the ability to export hydrolytic enzymes that break down biopolymers, which can be absorbed for nutrition.

This seems to be the place for comments on Sandefur's post about Shermer's book, which does not allow comments. So maybe someone could pass this on to him:

It's "oxytocin," not "oxycotin."

Henry J. -

Thanks, although actually, I already knew that about fungi. Some plants, Venus Flytraps and the like, can secrete enzymes for extracellular digestion of large biochemicals.

It was actually easy to learn that fungal cell walls, where present, are completely different from plant cell walls. Mildly embarrassing that I didn't google first. Of interest, fungal cell walls contain chitin. Also, since fungi are occasional pathogens, I probably should have known this anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_wall

I'm still curious about what the fundamental energy source of a pre-chloroplast plant lineage cell would have been, and how that cell would have differed from animal/fungal lineage cells in existence at the same time.

What I'd like to know is if the two types of cells diverged so early, before the inclusion of chloroplasts,and as someone said before multicellularity, why do both plants and animals have nearly the same meiotic division patterns? Would these not have evolved differently if they evolved seperately? I would think the eukaryotic seperations must have occurred after the evolution of "sexual" reproduction.

why do both plants and animals have nearly the same meiotic division patterns?

Rather like ID is a euphemism for creationism I find libertarianism is a euphemism for anarchy.

The cell phone is a perfect example of libertarianism not working. Give people a new toy and they find ways to use it to inflict abuse on other people.

Well, a day has passed and neither Sandefeur nor the staff of PT has acknowledged the civil requests to comment on Sandefeur's article.

Now I must resort to that form of language that always gets a response - the language of well-aimed mockery and ridicule.

PT, you make HYPOCRITES and FOOLS of yourselves to allow no-comment posts. How many millions of words of scorn have been directed at creationists for deleting unfavorable comments? But now PT endorses an even more grotesque form of cowardice, that of not even allowing comments in the first place!

It's obvious what happened. Sandefeur rightfully requested some acknowledgment for his valid services to the site and to the cause. And I support that general principle. Give him a cake, give him an award, give him a side-bar link to his blog, hell, give him money for all I care.

Sadly, the privilege which Sandefeur seems to have requested is a shameful and inappropriate one. He was given the privilege of turning PT, which boasts of being a venue for free intellectual discourse, into a closed, comment-free soap-box for his own little political theories.

Sandafeur, do you understand what a fool and hypocrite you look like putting up comment-blocked stuff even as you boast of being a "libertarian"? There is only one response to he who screeches "liberty" while shutting down the expression of others, and that response is

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Why has there been no acknowledgment of the request for comments? Are you too busy? What are you doing - hatching a batch of eggs? Because you're a chicken! AWK-BOK-BOK-BOK! What are you afraid of...Colonel Sanders?

harold --- Maybe just because it is President's Day?

Hmmm?

Continuing where Sandefur shouldn't have left off...

I've read several of Shermer's books, and I think Timothy is half-correct in his complaint. Shermer has a very annoying habit of researching and explaining in clear depth how things he disagrees with are wrong, misleading, or incomplete, BUT swallowing even the most hazily suggestive material as unquestioned gospel where it supports his argument or his preferences.

After parroting Shermer's sources a few times, only to find that they have been substantially modified if not outright discredited by subsequent research, I've learned to be very very leery of his presentations. Especially when I find that the corrective material was available easily in time for Shermer to have considered it before committing to publication.

In general, if Shermer finds something he can interpret to fit his argument's overall structure, even if its only suggestive or tentative, they he just assumes it must be solid. The care he takes to dismantle what does NOT fit his picture shows that he's capable of doing this sort of analysis, and OUGHT to suggest to him that maybe he'd be more persuasive applying this level of rigor to stuff he wants to hear as well.

Shermer strikes me as a debater rather than an explainer.

harold: Well, a day has passed and neither Sandefeur nor the staff of PT has acknowledged the civil requests to comment on Sandefeur's article.

Mr Sandefur has elected not to enable comments either here or at his own blog.

He has, however, left trackbacks enabled in both places. This would suggest that he is looking to encourage responses in the form of full articles, rather than the hit-and-run point-scoring style (with mythical Scandanavian troglodytes) that goes on the comments here.

In any case, switching the comments off altogether is a lot more honest than the selective trimming of adverse comments that goes on over at the home of the Explanatory Filter.

No, I think Timmy considers discussion to be, you know, plebian and scruffy. He has delivered unto us the One True Opinion, so well expressed that valid dissent is impossible and suggested improvements are incorrect. Besides, allowing comments implies that he'll stop by from time to time to (yuck!) wallow through them and perhaps actually respond. The very fact that some people have time to make comments simply shows that their time isn't nearly so valuable anyway.

He has delivered unto us the One True Opinion, so well expressed that valid dissent is impossible and suggested improvements are incorrect.

So, Harold, care to explain why you're distorting Sandefur's surname, EVEN AFTER IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

I see Sandefur has corrected the spelling of oxytocin. I take full credit.

So, Harold, care to explain why you’re distorting Sandefur’s surname, EVEN AFTER IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you miss the critical phrase “comment-free” in what you quoted?

Full to the limit; as full as possible.

Do fungi and animals have homologous mechanisms (i.e. inherited from their common ancestor) for multicellularity, or did each of them develop its own?

(Of course, this question runs the risk of interrupting the ongoing argument about a different thread, but what the heck.)

Henry

Fungi and animals also differ. One key element: the receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). Animals have them, plants don't, and as it turns out, Dictyostelium doesn't either.

As this post tries to argue, there might well be similarities in developmental logic, even if the components differ.

In addition to their critical ecological roles, choanoflagellates are of particular interest to evolutionary biologists studying the origins of multicellularity in animals. As one of the closest living relatives of animals, choanoflagellates serve as a useful model for reconstructions of the last unicellular ancestor of animals.

Not only that, but these guys have flagella, too

(Of course, this question runs the risk of interrupting the ongoing argument about a different thread, but what the heck.)

I am going with what wiki said. That aobut does it for me.