Magnificent momma

There seems to be an increasing tendency to find evidence of behavior, in large but small-brained vertebrates of the Mesozoic, that resembles the behavior of large and large-brained modern vertebrates.

If this is correct, the very strong relationship between cephalization and behavioral repertoire that we see in the modern era (mainly with total brain size although in small animals, brain mass to body mass ratio may be relevant) may not have been as strong.

If these types of animals did have behaviors that are mainly associated with highly cephalized lineages in the modern world, I can't help wondering if there is something about their neurobiology that we don't, and may never, understand.

Atheistoclast said: But no amount of mutations in hox genes will account for the degree of physiological synpolydactyly observed here.

Paul Burnett said:

Atheistoclast said: But no amount of mutations in hox genes will account for the degree of physiological synpolydactyly observed here.

So what alternative do you propose? They were created that way?

If these types of animals did have behaviors that are mainly associated with highly cephalized lineages in the modern world, I can’t help wondering if there is something about their neurobiology that we don’t, and may never, understand

But no amount of mutations in hox genes will account for the degree of physiological synpolydactyly observed here.

Atheistoclast said: But no amount of mutations in hox genes will account for the degree of physiological synpolydactyly observed here.

I should also add, what degree of change are we even talking about? From what to what? This hasn't even been specified so without this, the claim Atheistoclast makes and attacks is not only unsupported, but meaningless.

Of course, developmental pathways are necessary and sufficient to produce the limbs of all vertebrates. And changes in the pathways, particularly those that affect gene regulation, are demonstrably responsible for producing the diversity of vertebrate limbs that are observed. Indeed, it is literally impossible to explain vertebrate limb evolution outside the context that these pathways and consideration of the mechanisms by which they change over time. Here is a good review article containing seventy three references:

Woltering and Duboule (2010) The origin of digits: Expression patterns versus regulatory mechanisms. Developmental Cell !8:526-532.

Now of course no one has to believe it. They are perfectly free to no believe it, regardless of the fact that they have no evidence to the contrary, regardless of the fact that they have no explanation for the available evidence and regardless of the fact that they have no viable alternative. But then again, everyone is perfectly free to ignore those people as well.

But no amount of mutations in hox genes will account for the degree of physiological synpolydactyly observed here.

perfectly free to ignore those people as well.

Actually, we also know a lot about changes in hox gene regulatory regions and the evolution of flippers, Here is a good reference on the subject:

Wang et; al. (2009) Adaptive evolution of 5' Hoxd genes in the origin and diversification of the cetacean flipper. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26(3):613-622.

It is pretty safe to assume that if changes in hox regulatory sequences could produce the diversity of flippers seen in cetaceans, that similar changes would be responsible for the evolution of plesiosaurs flippers as well. Obviously this isn't the whole story and there is much more to be learned but it does explain a lot.

Joe has apparently never read "Eight Little Piggies".

Or anything else with scientific merti.

Rumraket said:

Atheistoclast said: But no amount of mutations in hox genes will account for the degree of physiological synpolydactyly observed here.

Two things: 1. Argument from bare assertion. 2. Has the claim you think you are addressing even been made or are you simply attacking a straw-man you just set up? I expect references when/if you try to answer. As in, a peer-reviewed paper detailing an actual laboratory experiment that directly supports your blunt assertion above(the specific claim that no amount of mutations in hox genes will produced the observed degree of change), and another reference for the implied claim you are addressing: Someone(actual developmental biologist) directly making the claim that pure mutations to hox genes does account for the observed degree of change. Testable prediction 1: None of what I just asked for will be forthcoming from Atheistoclast. Testable prediction 2: Lots of obfuscation and barely, tangentially relevant walls of text and quote-mines will be produced instead, in an obvious attempt at obfuscation.

IBelieveInGod said: Looks like PZ Myers is a little touchy!

Wow, it looks like the special effects team went all out for this one. I think this thing started with parts from the set of Jurassic Park III, right Mr. Myers. Now, I think I will find some old props from werewolf and godzilla movies and I will have the perfect transitional form which will make me famous!

Why do you think finding a transitional would make you famous, lambchop? At last count in fossil forms alone, you'd have to take a ticket and join the queue, about 200 places down.

Dave Luckett said: Why do you think finding a transitional would make you famous, lambchop? At last count in fossil forms alone, you'd have to take a ticket and join the queue, about 200 places down.

Not worldwide. Most of them seem to come from Texas, around Glen Rose and Mount Blanco.

The fossils were planted by UFOs ... disguised as airliners ... spreading Chemtrails(TM) ... to make people crazy ... and post silly trolls on internet forums.

DS -

Incidentally, I'm sure no-one here is disputing the major role of Hox genes in morphogenesis.

However, it is probably a straw man to suggest that anyone has ever yet claimed that Hox gene diversity, and only Hox gene diversity, accounts for all limb diversity in vertebrates.

Maybe Hox gene diversity is sufficient as a the genetic mechanism of limb diversity, but maybe not. What we know now is that it is important for limb morphology and has major effects on limb morphology.

The point of setting up that straw man is that the creationist using it will then be able to "claim victory" if any limb morphology variation is ever found to have anything to do with anything other than Hox gene variability.

Creationists commonly use this type of logic - trying to distort a positive scientific claim falsely into an exclusive claim, and then claiming that a violation of their own straw man exclusivity overturns a scientific principle. Scientists say that oranges are a source of vitamin C; creationists do the equivalent of arguing that scientists said "only oranges are a source of vitamin C", or that "vitamin C is the only vitamin", and claim that science has been overturned because grapefruit is also a source of vitamin C. And of course, it was scientists who also made the discovery of vitamin C in grapefruit.

Harold,

You are absolutely right. That's why I was so careful to say that the hox gene sequence is not the whole story. That's why I pointed out that more needs to be learned. Joe is the one who claimed that the authors concluded that this one change was sufficient to produce a flipper. They did not. Indeed, other changes in hox cis regulatory sequences are also known.

The point is that changes in hox genes and their regulatory sequences have been important is the evolution of the diversity of vertebrate appendages. This fact is indisputable, although that won't stop some people from complaining about it. If those people claim that this is insufficient, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate what more is needed. This does not prove that such changes were responsible for the evolution of plesiosaurs, it just makes it extremely likely. Now if anyone wants to falsify that hypothesis, all they need to do is to sequence some plesiosaur DNA, or at least provide some evidence that evolution works in fundamentally different ways in this lineage than in any other group of animals. Until then, claiming that every published paper is wrong is just nuts. Of course there is more to it than just one small change in one small gene. That doesn't mean that science is wrong. it just means that more science is needed.

I'm not big on censorship, but a better permanent forum for the sheephumper would be the BW. He never adds anything, not even an honest misconception, question about evolution, or "how does evolution answer this creationist objection?" He just sneeringly accuses all scientists of blatantly lying about everything, always. We don't need him. Let him yell in the toilet. The echoes are better in there, anyway.

harold said: DS - Incidentally, I'm sure no-one here is disputing the major role of Hox genes in morphogenesis. However, it is probably a straw man to suggest that anyone has ever yet claimed that Hox gene diversity, and only Hox gene diversity, accounts for all limb diversity in vertebrates. Maybe Hox gene diversity is sufficient as a the genetic mechanism of limb diversity, but maybe not. What we know now is that it is important for limb morphology and has major effects on limb morphology. The point of setting up that straw man is that the creationist using it will then be able to "claim victory" if any limb morphology variation is ever found to have anything to do with anything other than Hox gene variability. Creationists commonly use this type of logic - trying to distort a positive scientific claim falsely into an exclusive claim, and then claiming that a violation of their own straw man exclusivity overturns a scientific principle. Scientists say that oranges are a source of vitamin C; creationists do the equivalent of arguing that scientists said "only oranges are a source of vitamin C", or that "vitamin C is the only vitamin", and claim that science has been overturned because grapefruit is also a source of vitamin C. And of course, it was scientists who also made the discovery of vitamin C in grapefruit.

DS -

We entirely agree, of course.

Just Bob -

While I agree that an "auto-BW" feature (certain usernames automatically sent there) would be great, I actually think that Joseph "Atheistoclast" Bozorghmer often, ironically, sets up some decent discussions.

On the other hand, a program that sends his third and subsequent comments on any thread to the BW would be handy :).

harold said: While I agree that an "auto-BW" feature (certain usernames automatically sent there) would be great, I actually think that Joseph "Atheistoclast" Bozorghmer often, ironically, sets up some decent discussions. On the other hand, a program that sends his third and subsequent comments on any thread to the BW would be handy :).

harold said: Just Bob - While I agree that an "auto-BW" feature (certain usernames automatically sent there) would be great, I actually think that Joseph "Atheistoclast" Bozorghmer often, ironically, sets up some decent discussions. On the other hand, a program that sends his third and subsequent comments on any thread to the BW would be handy :).

harold said:

If these types of animals did have behaviors that are mainly associated with highly cephalized lineages in the modern world, I can’t help wondering if there is something about their neurobiology that we don’t, and may never, understand

On the other hand, I think I will correct myself here. My childhood exposure to dinosaur science happened to take place about the time that "encephalization quotient" (ratio of brain size to body size) was in vogue; I probably absorbed stereotypes. However, 1) modern animal behavior actually correlates better with overall brain size/body temperature regulation, and 2) Dinosaur-age large vertebrate brains were not all that small. I remember the "size of a walnut" stereotype; in fact, there are probably primate species with brains the size of a walnut. (The quote below deals with dinosaur brains; I realize that the thread doesn't deal with a dinosaur, but it is still germane.) "It is often said that Stegosaurus had a brain the size of a walnut - in fact it was more like the size of a lime, or a dog's brain, but still relatively small for a dinosaur that grew up to nine metres long." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/08/dinosaurs-intelligence-brain-size So in fact, relatively developed behavior may not be surprising at all.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said:

harold said:

If these types of animals did have behaviors that are mainly associated with highly cephalized lineages in the modern world, I can’t help wondering if there is something about their neurobiology that we don’t, and may never, understand

On the other hand, I think I will correct myself here. My childhood exposure to dinosaur science happened to take place about the time that "encephalization quotient" (ratio of brain size to body size) was in vogue; I probably absorbed stereotypes. However, 1) modern animal behavior actually correlates better with overall brain size/body temperature regulation, and 2) Dinosaur-age large vertebrate brains were not all that small. I remember the "size of a walnut" stereotype; in fact, there are probably primate species with brains the size of a walnut. (The quote below deals with dinosaur brains; I realize that the thread doesn't deal with a dinosaur, but it is still germane.) "It is often said that Stegosaurus had a brain the size of a walnut - in fact it was more like the size of a lime, or a dog's brain, but still relatively small for a dinosaur that grew up to nine metres long." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/08/dinosaurs-intelligence-brain-size So in fact, relatively developed behavior may not be surprising at all.

Harold - below is not a critisism of your post - it my $.02 in addition: I suspect that we cannot assume that sophisticated behavior/"intelligence" is exclusive of large brain size. Modern dinosaurs (birds) display a range of sophisticated behaviors , yet have small brains - see ALEX the grey parrot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot) I don't know what the "encephalization quotient" for a grey parrot is, but his brain was in the "walnut" range yet, despite this his "intelligence" was reported to rival some primates (or even dolphins!) IMHO it is not a stretch at all to hypotosize some level of sophisticated behavior in Alex's ancestors

Not all investigators are happy with the amount of attention that has been paid to brain size. Roth and Dicke, for example, have argued that factors other than size are more highly correlated with intelligence, such as the number of cortical neurons and the speed of their connections.[9] Moreover they point out that intelligence depends not just on the amount of brain tissue, but on the details of how it is structured. It is also well known that crows, ravens, and African Grey Parrots are quite intelligent even though they have small brains. From - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size End blockquote

To return more or less to the topic (even if only as a tourist), I have often wondered what swimming style a beast with four paddles might adopt.

With the right skeletal rigidity, moving diagonally opposite paddle pairs in the same direction (e.g. LF, RR up; RF, LR down) could be seriously competitive. With the right musculature, you could even have significant power in reverse.

Shebardigan said: To return more or less to the topic (even if only as a tourist), I have often wondered what swimming style a beast with four paddles might adopt. With the right skeletal rigidity, moving diagonally opposite paddle pairs in the same direction (e.g. LF, RR up; RF, LR down) could be seriously competitive. With the right musculature, you could even have significant power in reverse.

Shebardigan said: To return more or less to the topic (even if only as a tourist), I have often wondered what swimming style a beast with four paddles might adopt. With the right skeletal rigidity, moving diagonally opposite paddle pairs in the same direction (e.g. LF, RR up; RF, LR down) could be seriously competitive. With the right musculature, you could even have significant power in reverse.

Matt G said: Atheistoclast's last comment, which was moved to the BW (I'm not sure why) ... he cherry picks data to suit his purposes, and makes arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

OT now that Troll-be-gone has been applied.

Wouldn't suprise me if those plesiosaurs were placental. That baby looks way too large for ovoviparity.

There are placental sharks and placental lizards at least. Placentas have evolved over and over and it doesn't seem to be too much of a trick.

As to how they swim. IIRC, they row with oars like a rowboat. Of course, the oars are flippers.

You answered your own question. I wish others were as discriminating as PZ is as to who he allows to post on his threads.

To find out how a critter with four flippers swims, just go to Loch Ness...

Science Avenger said:

Matt G said: Atheistoclast's last comment, which was moved to the BW (I'm not sure why) ... he cherry picks data to suit his purposes, and makes arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

You answered your own question. I wish others were as discriminating as PZ is as to who he allows to post on his threads. Keeps the noise/information ratio to a much more enjoyably low level.

Matt G said:

Science Avenger said:

Matt G said: Atheistoclast's last comment, which was moved to the BW (I'm not sure why) ... he cherry picks data to suit his purposes, and makes arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

You answered your own question. I wish others were as discriminating as PZ is as to who he allows to post on his threads. Keeps the noise/information ratio to a much more enjoyably low level.

The name Bathroom Wall suggested to me it would be reserved for posts of an uncivil nature, not ones that were intellectually dishonest. Why aren't posts by FL and Byers (sp?) sent there automatically? They contribute absolutely nothing. Atheistoclast authors his papers solo. Does he have a lab, or does he just sit and throw stones at people who do real research?

Rumraket said: He has countless lines of argument like these, and you learn to just laugh at them after a while.

An example is when he argues enzymes can’t evolve new functions, only slightly alter their existing one, he’ll say something like “nobody has ever seen an esterase evolve into a hydrolase” or something similar. Him being a dishonest creationist and all, you naturally check the claim and discover: Oh man, he’s right… noone has ever witnessed that, evolution must be false

harold said: Axe sets up a system where he changes something about a protein in such a way that some original enzyme function drops off. He then claims that this is what will always happen with any mutation, and that evolution is thus impossible. He ignores, among other things, the possibility of slightly variant function, the possibility of gene retention and subsequent mutation, the possibility of gene duplication and then mutation, the possibility of function so novel that he didn't test for it, etc, etc.

Shebardigan said: With the right musculature, you could even have significant power in reverse.

Mike Elzinga said: And guess what; it’s physics and chemistry all the way down and all the way up.

Mike Elzinga said: This is so typical of ID/creationist thinking. Ever since Henry Morris, they “know” the universe comes all apart and that it’s all downhill since the Fall. Therefore all experiments must be made to show “deterioration.”

Mike Elzinga said: And guess what; it’s physics and chemistry all the way down and all the way up.

harold said: Axe sets up a system where he changes something about a protein in such a way that some original enzyme function drops off. He then claims that this is what will always happen with any mutation, and that evolution is thus impossible. He ignores, among other things, the possibility of slightly variant function, the possibility of gene retention and subsequent mutation, the possibility of gene duplication and then mutation, the possibility of function so novel that he didn't test for it, etc, etc.

Henry J said:

Mike Elzinga said: And guess what; it’s physics and chemistry all the way down and all the way up.

What, no turtles? Henry

Biology is, of course, merely organic chemistry. {really LARGE smilie}

Kevin B said:

Henry J said:

Mike Elzinga said: And guess what; it’s physics and chemistry all the way down and all the way up.

What, no turtles? Henry

The plesiosaurs ate them. :) Actually, (speaking as an ex-chemist) the chemistry stops when you get down to single atoms, whereas the physics keeps on going the way to absolutely nothing. Biology is, of course, merely organic chemistry. {really LARGE smilie}

Mike Elzinga said: ID/creationists look only at the things that come apart and believe that the universe is disintegrating.

Self sustaining? Like the sun turning into a red giant in a few billion years? Or Andromeda plowing into our galaxy somewhat before then? Or the up and down motion of our sun relative to the galactic plane causing it to occasionally move into less habitable regions every now and then? Or dark energy causing everything to repel everything else in a few trillion or so years from now? I'm not sure that "self-sustaining" is the right term here!

Henry J said: Self sustaining? Like the sun turning into a red giant in a few billion years? Or Andromeda plowing into our galaxy somewhat before then? Or the up and down motion of our sun relative to the galactic plane causing it to occasionally move into less habitable regions every now and then? Or dark energy causing everything to repel everything else in a few trillion or so years from now? I'm not sure that "self-sustaining" is the right term here!

Rumraket said: They may not work for an eternity, but they work very well for the time they have, on their own.

Rumraket said: Noone was arguing that these processes last forever. When the sun dies, so will every living organism on this planet. The issue is with the claim that the observed processes require near-constant divine fiddling to work, they don't. They may not work for an eternity, but they work very well for the time they have, on their own.

Matt G said: I'm not so sure about that. A species of bacteria has been found which obtains its energy from radioactive decay.

mrg said:

Matt G said: I'm not so sure about that. A species of bacteria has been found which obtains its energy from radioactive decay.

COOL! Got a reference? Preferably one for layfolk. One of the (admittedly emotional) arguments for abiogenesis is the extraordinary persistence of life -- it's like it seems driven to always find a way. Of course if it doesn't ... it's not there any more.

How about a quote from Ian Malcolm:

"Life will find a way."

Matt G said:

mrg said:

Matt G said: I'm not so sure about that. A species of bacteria has been found which obtains its energy from radioactive decay.

COOL! Got a reference? Preferably one for layfolk. One of the (admittedly emotional) arguments for abiogenesis is the extraordinary persistence of life -- it's like it seems driven to always find a way. Of course if it doesn't ... it's not there any more.

How about a press release from Princeton? http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S16/13/72E53/index.xml?section=newsreleases

Mike Elzinga said: I think most physicists and biochemists agree that we haven’t had time to have explored all the possible environments in which life can occur. This makes the rest of the universe an even more interesting place for exploration. Finding how life began is not just a matter of finding the “right” recipe; there may indeed be many recipes. Different life forms could be forming and evolving right here on Earth; they just might happen to be in places we haven’t gone yet. Lots of exciting science ahead.

Mike Elzinga said:

Matt G said:

mrg said:

Matt G said: I'm not so sure about that. A species of bacteria has been found which obtains its energy from radioactive decay.

COOL! Got a reference? Preferably one for layfolk. One of the (admittedly emotional) arguments for abiogenesis is the extraordinary persistence of life -- it's like it seems driven to always find a way. Of course if it doesn't ... it's not there any more.

How about a press release from Princeton? http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S16/13/72E53/index.xml?section=newsreleases

The key for most extremophiles is to be near an energy cascade. It doesn’t have to be sunlight as visible light and UV (on the order of a couple of eV) cascading down to produce the ambient temperatures and energy sources for driving chemical reactions or breaking down chemicals. Radioactive decay is very nearly ideal because even very energetic decays can produce cascades of energy such that there will be many energy windows within which complex systems can grow and survive. There will very likely be energies on the order of a few eV that can influence chemistry and energies on the order of a few hundredths of an eV that will provide a suitable thermal bath. The physics and chemistry of such systems would suggest that the more ancient living systems will be, on average, shuttled out of fairly energetic environments into lower energy environments where they “anneal” and stabilize. If they are formed in environments that lack oxygen, they can live on the kinds of chemistry that don’t tear them apart. Exposing them to oxygen or any electron-grabbing elements kills them. Besides having the right mix of elements and compounds, complex systems need to be complex enough to have literally billions of degrees of freedom. That almost guarantees small binding energies which in turn sets the energy window in which they remain “soft” without coming apart but loose enough to maximize degrees of freedom. I think most physicists and biochemists agree that we haven’t had time to have explored all the possible environments in which life can occur. This makes the rest of the universe an even more interesting place for exploration. Finding how life began is not just a matter of finding the “right” recipe; there may indeed be many recipes. Different life forms could be forming and evolving right here on Earth; they just might happen to be in places we haven’t gone yet. Lots of exciting science ahead.

Mike Elzinga said: Radioactive decay is very nearly ideal because even very energetic decays can produce cascades of energy such that there will be many energy windows within which complex systems can grow and survive. There will very likely be energies on the order of a few eV that can influence chemistry and energies on the order of a few hundredths of an eV that will provide a suitable thermal bath.

mrg said: Even if we search for them and come up zeroes, we're bound to find some very interesting things in the meantime.

mrg said:

Matt G said: I'm not so sure about that. A species of bacteria has been found which obtains its energy from radioactive decay.

COOL! Got a reference? Preferably one for layfolk. One of the (admittedly emotional) arguments for abiogenesis is the extraordinary persistence of life -- it's like it seems driven to always find a way. Of course if it doesn't ... it's not there any more.

Mid-Autumn Festival gift discount mbt shoes the best health choices - Mid-Autumn Festival gift to send it? discount mbt shoes sale? MBT is a healthy choice for your beautiful; Everything goes wrong, like you always healthy and smug. MBT Barabara Shoes unique sole structure, but through the balance of movement, that is by increasing muscle activity, making the wearer is in a naturally stable state, be eliminated. No flowers, no gifts, only my deep blessings! Mid-Autumn Festival to send what is good. MBT shoes then choose it. What kind of shoe health, how healthy it is. MBT shoes to improve health: can lead body movement. Encourage the use of neglected muscle; help improve the back, buttocks, legs and feet; help joints, muscles, ligaments and tendon injury recovery; improve posture and gait; adjustment and shape physique; reduce knee and bone joints pressure. Studies, MBT-shoes Mid-Autumn Festival gift choice for optimum health. Walking, MBT Fitness Shoes can relieve knee problems, his legs stretched before direct contact with the ground, and then through the knee to stimulate the muscles around the joint. Oh, good choice for their loved ones. Mid-Autumn Festival gift MBT-shoes the best health choices, though nothing exciting life we ??live, but I feel particularly happy, too much of the language can not express to you, I love you deeply. I love you, loved ones. So coming Mid-Autumn Festival Mid-Autumn Festival in the end the gifts to the pro talent is good, because you - family, your love permeate every corner of my life. This is a very difficult problem Oh, but the emergence of MBT shoes allow you to choose a gift, full of confidence. Because this is definitely a healthy gift oh. MBT shoes a good gift to relatives. Mid-Autumn Festival gift MBT-shoes the best health choice.

Mike Elzinga said: Finding how life began is not just a matter of finding the “right” recipe; there may indeed be many recipes. Different life forms could be forming and evolving right here on Earth; they just might happen to be in places we haven’t gone yet. Lots of exciting science ahead.

Such as something silicon based instead of carbon based?

Henry J said: Such as something silicon based instead of carbon based?

apokryltaros said:

Henry J said: Such as something silicon based instead of carbon based?

I would find lifeforms that use enatiomers of DNA bases to be exciting, even.

apokryltaros said:

Henry J said: Such as something silicon based instead of carbon based?

I would find lifeforms that use enatiomers of DNA bases to be exciting, even.