Corante

Corante: technology, business, media, law, and culture news from the blogosphere
<$MTBlogName$> OUR PUBLICATIONS:
Corante Blogs

Corante Blogs examine, through the eyes of leading observers, analysts, thinkers, and doers, critical themes and memes in technology, business, law, science, and culture.

The Press Will Be Outsourced Before Stopped

Vin Crosbie, on the challenges, financial and otherwise, that newspaper publishers are facing: "The real problem, Mr. Newspaperman, isn't that your content isn't online or isn't online with multimedia. It's your content. Specifically, it's what you report, which stories you publish, and how you publish them to people, who, by the way, have very different individual interests. The problem is the content you're giving them, stupid; not the platform its on."
by Vin Crosbie in Rebuilding Media

Travels In Numerica Deserta

There's a problem in the drug industry that people have recognized for some years, but we're not that much closer to dealing with it than we were then. We keep coming up with these technologies and techniques which seem as if they might be able to help us with some of our nastiest problems - I'm talking about genomics in all its guises, and metabolic profiling, and naturally the various high-throughput screening platforms, and others. But whether these are helping or not (and opinions sure do vary), one thing that they all have in common is that they generate enormous heaps of data.
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline

Disrobing the Emperor: The online “user experience” isn't much of one

Now that the Web labor market is saturated and Web design a static profession, it's not surprising that 'user experience' designers and researchers who've spent their careers online are looking for new worlds to conquer. Some are returning to the “old media” as directors and producers. More are now doing offline consulting (service experience design, social policy design, exhibition design, and so on) under the 'user experience' aegis. They argue that the lessons they've learned on the Web can be applied to phenomena in the physical and social worlds. But there are enormous differences...
by Bob Jacobson in Total Experience

Second Life: What are the real numbers?

Clay Shirky, in deconstructing Second Life hype: "Second Life is heading towards two million users. Except it isn’t, really... I suspect Second Life is largely a 'Try Me' virus, where reports of a strange and wonderful new thing draw the masses to log in and try it, but whose ability to retain anything but a fraction of those users is limited. The pattern of a Try Me virus is a rapid spread of first time users, most of whom drop out quickly, with most of the dropouts becoming immune to later use."
by Clay Shirky in Many-to-Many

The democratisation of everything

Over the last few years we've seen old barriers to creativity coming down, one after the other. New technologies and services makes it trivial to publish text, whether by blog or by print-on-demand. Digital photography has democratised a previously expensive hobby. And we're seeing the barriers to movie-making crumble, with affordable high-quality cameras and video hosting provided by YouTube or Google Video and their ilk... Music making has long been easy for anyone to engage in, but technology has made high-quality recording possible without specialised equipment, and the internet has revolutionised distribution, drastically disintermediating the music industry... What's left? Software maybe? Or maybe not."
by Suw Charman in Strange Attractor

RNA Interference: Film at Eleven

Derek Lowe on the news that the Nobel Prize for medicine has gone to Craig Mello and Andrew Fire for their breakthrough work: "RNA interference is probably going to have a long climb before it starts curing many diseases, because many of those problems are even tougher than usual in its case. That doesn't take away from the discovery, though, any more than the complications of off-target effects take away from it when you talk about RNAi's research uses in cell culture. The fact that RNA interference is trickier than it first looked, in vivo or in vitro, is only to be expected. What breakthrough isn't?"
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline

PVP and the Honorable Enemy

Andrew Phelps: "Recently my WoW guild has been having a bit of a debate on the merits of Player-vs.-Player (PvP) within Azeroth. My personal opinion on this is that PvP has its merits, and can be incredible fun, but the system within WoW is horridly, horribly broken. It takes into account the concept of the battle, but battle without consequence, without emotive context, and most importantly, without honor..."

From later in the piece: "When I talk about this with people (thus far anyway) I typically get one of two responses, either 'yeah, right on!' or 'hey, it’s war, and war isn’t honorable – grow the hell up'. There is a lot to be said for that argument – but the problem is that war in the real historical world has very different constraints that are utterly absent from fantasized worlds..."
by Andrew Phelps in Got Game

Rats Rule, Right?

Derek Lowe: "So, you're developing a drug candidate. You've settled on what looks like a good compound - it has the activity you want in your mouse model of the disease, it's not too hard to make, and it's not toxic. Everything looks fine. Except. . .one slight problem. Although the compound has good blood levels in the mouse and in the dog, in rats it's terrible. For some reason, it just doesn't get up there. Probably some foul metabolic pathway peculiar to rats (whose innards are adapted, after all, for dealing with every kind of garbage that comes along). So, is this a problem?.."
by Derek Lowe in In the Pipeline

Really BAD customer experience at Albertsons Market

Bob Jacobson, on shopping at his local Albertsons supermarket where he had "one of the worst customer experiences" of his life: "Say what you will about the Safeway chain or the Birkenstock billionaires who charge through the roof for Whole Foods' organic fare, they know how to create shopping environments that create a more pleasurable experience, at its best (as at Whole Foods) quite enjoyable. Even the warehouses like Costco and its smaller counterpart, Smart & Final, do just fine: they have no pretentions, but neither do they dump virtual garbage on the consumer merely to create another trivial revenue stream, all for the sake of promotions in the marketing department..."
by Strange Attractor in Total Experience

The Guardian's "Comment is Free"

Kevin Anderson: "First off, I want to say that I really admire the ambition of the Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free. It is one of the boldest statements made by any media company that participation needs to be central to a radical revamp of traditional content strategies... It is, therfore, not hugely surprising to find that Comment is Free is having a few teething troubles..."
by Kevin Anderson in strange
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

The Loom

« Look! Up in the Sky! Flying Hobbits! | Main | Light from Dark »

June 21, 2005

Surprises in Jelly

Email This Entry

Posted by Carl Zimmer

Jellyfish.jpg
I’ve got an article in today’s New York Times about jellyfish and their kin—known as cnidarians. Cnidarians look pretty simple, which helped earn them a reputation as simple and primitive compared to vertebrates like us, as well as insects, squid, and other creatures with heads and tails, eyes, and so on (known as bilaterians). But it turns out that a lot of the genes that map our complex anatomy are lurking in cnidarians, too. Scientists are now pondering what all that genetic complexity does for the cnidarians. They’re also using these findings to get a better idea of how the major groups of animals evolved between 600 and 500 million years ago.

For those interested some of the gorey details, check out PZ Myers’s take. Be sure to follow the links to earlier comments on some of the key papers on this research, plus diagrams.

In addition, curious readers can check out:

The timing of the evolution of cnidarians and bilaterians (full text)

An ode to the starlet sea anemone, which has revealed a lot of the secrets of the cnidarians (abstract only)

The evolution of diploblasty (development from two embryonic layers)

Update, 4:20 pm: PZ Myers link fixed (and spelling corrected!).

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Evolution


COMMENTS

1. Charlie Wagner on June 21, 2005 11:23 AM writes...

Carl Zimmer wrote:
"Much to their surprise, the scientists found that some genes switched on in embryos were nearly identical to the genes that determined the head-to-tail axis of bilaterians, including humans. More surprisingly, the genes switched on in the same head-to-tail pattern as in bilaterians.

Further studies showed that cnidarians used other genes from the bilaterian tool kit. The same genes that patterned the front and back of the bilaterian embryo, for example, were produced on opposite sides of the anemone embryo.

The findings have these scientists wondering why cnidarians use such a complex set of body-building genes when their bodies end up looking so simple."

Indeed...

What it's got me to wondering is how genes can "evolve" before the organisms that use them. It seems to me that these genes were there from the very beginning, they didn't "evolve" from other genes, they were part of a program of evolution in which more complex structures emerged by switching on genetic potential that was already present.
It is evidence that what you call evolution is in reality the unfolding of a program that was already present in the genomes of primitive organisms at the time of their initial arrival on earth.
How is the information about Cnidarian genetics you describe consistent with the darwinian mechanism of random mutation and selection? It seems to me that the presence of genetic potential in organisms before this potential is realized falsifies the darwinian view of evolution and supports the notion that the genes did not evolve along with the structures and processes they control, but were there before these processes and structures emerged.

Permalink to Comment

2. Carl Zimmer on June 21, 2005 11:29 AM writes...

During evolution, genes are duplicated and undergo mutations. These new, evolving genes take on new functions. Entire networks of these genes can then be co-opted for new uses.

The genes I discuss in my article were not present in the common ancestor of all life on Earth. They do not exist in bacteria, for example. They do not even exist (as far as scientists know) in sponges. Only after the ancestors of cnidarians and bilaterians diverged from sponges did they emerge.

Permalink to Comment

3. scott ecksel on June 21, 2005 11:50 AM writes...

"Surprise" is an understatement. Would this also affect the taxonomic placement of Ctenophores?

Permalink to Comment

4. Charlie Wagner on June 21, 2005 12:09 PM writes...

Carl Zimmer wrote:
"The genes I discuss in my article..."

Thanks for the reply.
Unfortunately, it is less than satisfying.

http:www.charliewagner.com

Permalink to Comment

5. taylor on June 21, 2005 12:16 PM writes...

"It is evidence that what you call evolution is in reality the unfolding of a program that was already present in the genomes of primitive organisms at the time of their initial arrival on earth."

Jeez, that's clueless. Didn't know there were Raelians lurking here.

Permalink to Comment

6. Traffic Demon on June 21, 2005 01:30 PM writes...

To steal a phrase, "Nobody cares what you think Charlie."

Permalink to Comment

7. Linkmeister on June 21, 2005 04:00 PM writes...

There's something wrong with the link to Pharyngula.

Permalink to Comment

8. G Lynn on June 21, 2005 05:44 PM writes...

Trafic Demon

"Nobody cares what you think Charlie."

Don't you get it yet - he does not think - that is the whole point.

Permalink to Comment

9. Blue Collar Scientist on June 22, 2005 10:59 AM writes...

...darwinian mechanism of random mutation and selection?

Random mutation and selection? Give me a break.

The theory of natural selection says, clearly and above all else, that selection is NOT random. According to this theory, those individuals in a population that are poorly adapted to their environment are most likely to die without having reproduced. This is quite different from having individuals killed off according to a dice roll.

Nor is mutation fully random, in the strictest sense. Certain kinds of mutation (such as doublings of series of genes) are far more likely than other kinds of mutations (such as ones that suddenly introduce a brand new set of fully expressed developmental genes). So while specific outcomes are fairly random, the likelihood of overcopying of already effective genes is much stronger than the creation of genes ex nihilo in a mutation event. And as expected, most mutated individuals are either unaffected by the mutaton, or hurt by it. The latter individuals are nonrandomly removed from the population due to their unfitness.

The fact is, "random mutation and selection" is a lie about what evolution is, perpetrated by fringe antiscience activists because without telling this lie, they have an immeasurably more difficult time convincing others that their further lies about evolution are true.

Somebody should have pointed out the fact of nonrandom selection fairly immediately. I'm surprised Carl let it slide.

Permalink to Comment

10. Charlie Wagner on June 22, 2005 01:00 PM writes...

Blue wrote:

"Somebody should have pointed out the fact of nonrandom selection fairly immediately."

The question of whether or not selection is random is a red herring.
Clearly, it is not random, those individuals better equipped to survive will have a selective advantage.
But this is irrelevant. Selection can only work on variation that is already present. It has no power to organize, integrate or create new processes, structures, systems or organisms. This variation is the product of mutation, and mutations are mostly random.
Therefore, it is correct to say that the process of evolution itself, as descibed by Darwin and his successors, is a random process.

Permalink to Comment

11. DeafScribe on June 22, 2005 07:19 PM writes...

The real news here is simply that even the most ancient genes are conserved and re-used. This is consistent with an evolutionary perspective; genes adapted for a given purpose are re-purposed and employed for a variety of functions. That suggests highly plastic, mallable, dynamic responses to environmental and evolutionary pressures.

By itself, this doesn't refute the ID view; but it certainly adds to the enormous body of evidence that does.

Permalink to Comment

12. Charlie Wagner on June 22, 2005 08:05 PM writes...

Deaf wrote:

"The real news here is simply that even the most ancient genes are conserved and re-used."

Yes indeed. In fact, the same genes are used over and over in a wide variety of forms and applications across a broad range of structures and processes.
This is of great significance. But it begs the question: "where did these genes and the regulatory mchanisms that control their deployment come from"?
I fail to see how this contributes in any way to refuting the notion of intelligent input. In fact, it supports the notion that evolution, like development, is the unfolding of a program that is already present in the genome and has been from the very beginning, rather than a haphazard accumulation of fortuitous accidents occurring over time.

Permalink to Comment

13. doug on June 23, 2005 12:44 AM writes...

Isn't it amazing how everything seems to provide evidence for evolution? The brain shrinks in some form of pygmy homo erectus. Thats evolution! Ancient genes survive millions of years unchanged. That's evolution?! Women have orgasms. That's evolution! Although not all women have orgasms and they still manage to reproduce hmm luckily with the right spin...That's evolution! We live in a civil society with people working for cooperative goals. That's evolution! Unfortunately some people murder and rape. Just an unfortunate side-effect, but that's evolution.

Not only is everything evidence for evolution but evolution explains everything! No its not circular reasoning its Evolution!
Thank goodness we don't need to resort to God to explain the world around. Now we have Evolution! Its the all-encompassing answer to the ultimate question (I always thought it was 42). The evolutionist has reached the omniscient nirvana. maybe we should start meeting at the biology lab on Sunday mornings. We can sing some Evolution Hymns. Do they exist? Don't worry they'll evolve. I'll just start selectively pressing some keys on the organ and type a few letters while blindfolded. Okay I'm getting a little carried away...chalk it up to evolution.

Permalink to Comment

14. andrew burnes on July 1, 2005 01:13 PM writes...

holy crap. i just want to learn about evolution, and everywhere i go there's some jackass creationist throwing stinkbombs. i really do think that blogs are great conversational forums (fora?) in which to broaden your understanding of complex subjects but is there anywhere on the web that you can learn something without being harrassed by morons?

Permalink to Comment

15. Steve Russell on July 1, 2005 03:20 PM writes...

We have every good reason not to waste any further time or effort on Doug. (And presumably everybody already knows that CW should be ignored.) Doug posted exactly these same "arguments"--which now turn out to be merely regurgitated from ID lawyer Phillip Johnson--on an earlier thread, Carl graciously responded, and many other commentators attempted to sddress Doug's "concerns."

Doug simply ignored many of the points made, twisted and squirmed to avoid the fair impact of others, and is now reduced to simple repitition. In short, he's now been revealed as yet another close-minded troll.

Bye, Doug.

Permalink to Comment

16. Bagaaz on July 2, 2005 02:18 AM writes...

Doug babbled : "Not only is everything evidence for evolution but evolution explains everything!"

Funny that. If there is something that evolution can't currently explain it's usually exploited by creationists.

We used to have:

"Evolution can't explain X, therefore evolution is wrong".

Now we have:

"Evolution explains everything, therefore evolution is wrong".

There's just no pleasing those dumb creationists.

(Yes, I know that he basically cut and pasted that rubbish, we all know that intelligent information cannot be created by creationists as that would falsify ID-ism)

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Talking at Woods Hole
Invisible Gladiators in the Petri Dish Coliseum
Synthetic Biology--You are There
Manimals, Sticklebacks, and Finches
Jakob the Hobbit?
Grandma Manimal
Hominids for Clinical Trials--The Paper
The Neanderthal Genome Project Begins