Re: Cambrian "explosion"
- In a message dated 3/1/00 2:10:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<< From: Tedd Hadley <hadley@...>
> Observe that there is a critical English difference between
> "forgot to reference it" "and I forgot the reference". Do you
> see it?
> Yes but those of us with reading comprehension would understand
> that forgetting to reference it is synonymous with forgot the
> reference. Since I couldn't figure out where the quote came
> from, because I forgot to reference it.
No, forgetting *to* reference is quite different from
forgetting the reference. Perhaps you meant that you
forgot the reference, but it is simply not grammatically
or semantically correct to infer the latter from the
No forgetting to reference it is synomous with forgetting
the reference. Since I forgot to reference it , I couldn't
look up the reference and figure out where the quote came
from. This is obvious to those who have reading comprehension
> > "Evolutionary change of early ontogenetic stages is significantTedd:
> > in providing novel developmental patterns and life histories.
> > These stages are significant in determining the evolution
> > of animal body plans."
> Yes, evolutionary change is significant. This quote does not,
> however, describe what the process of change must be.
> Actually yes it does, it states:
> "Evolutionary change of early ontogenetic stages..."
No, what I'm looking for is merely a description of the
process involved; in particular, why it supposedly
differs from inherited mutations. (From your apparent
inability to provide the details of this process,
we must conclude there is no difference; hence,
"change during ontogeny" has always meant the
process of inherited mutations).
Non-sequitor, even if I didn't provide the details, changes during the
stages of ontogeny are nothing like inherited mutations. Listen carefully,
one is BEFORE development, one is DURING development. One causes lethality,
one does not, as anyone who anything about embryology and who has read and
understood my quotes knows.
Besides, I provided clear and concise descriptions of the process of change
> Nothing you claim here can be interpreted in that quote.This
> quote has nothing to do with inherited mutations , because
> that occurs before "early ontogenetic stages" and has nothing
> to do with "evolutionary change OF early ontogenetic stages.."
> Early ontogenetic stages need to change in order to have body plans
> and especially during the Cambrian explosion. Inherited mutations
> is a red herring.
Inherited mutations is only a red herring if we all bow down
to Nelson and admit that he's right (fat chance).
Whatever you say Tedd.
nothing you've provided so far makes a critical distinction between
inherited mutations and something else, there's no evidence
to suggest you haven't merely misunderstood the phrase
"change of early ontogentic stages".
Change of early ontogenetic stages is exactly that. How you can
interpret it by inherited mutations is beyond me. Remember, Pendleton, Raff,
and the paper I quoted in my previous post all say that changes during these
stages result in a
The evidence exists in all the places that you snipped, interesting
Fortunately though, you didn't snip the experiment I quote below.
Early ontogentic stages can change, and they can change by
the process of inherited mutations, which several papers
already quoted document -- most of them from you --
and recently provided by Holland, it seems.
You have not shown not one scintilla of evidence that inherited mutations
have anything to do with changes during ontogenetic stages. Also, the very
fact that you snipped and ignored all my quotes is concession enough.
[continuing with another quote]
> In fact, the paper makes the following points:Tedd:
> " Evolutionists, meanwhile, forged the so-called neo-Darwinian synthesis,
> reconciling natural selection with genetic studies on the heritability of
> traits. But they paid little regard to how those traits developed in
> individual organisms and "left out developmental biology completely," says
> developmental biologist Brian Hall of Dalhousie University in Halifax,
> Nova Scotia. "
Yes, this is why Holland talks about a timely reconciliation
between developmental biology and evolutionary biology. Now,
considerable progress is being made in this area. Holland
"[Evolutionary developmental biology] concerns itself with
how developmental processes themselves have evolved: how
they can be modified by genetic change, and how such modifications
produce the past and present diversity of morphologies and
body plans." (c41).
Of course Dr. Peter Holland is pretty stupid, according to
Nelson, since the good doctor should know that developmental
processes *can't evolve* because such changes would produce
fatalities. Yeah, right.
I never said he was stupid, I'm saying that you are not reading
it correctly.And you have not refuted that.
Nothing in any of the quotes support your argument
that inherited mutations are like changes during ontogeny, instead
he supports my argument by saying that changes must occur during
intermediary stages of development, since they are different, he also
that gene duplication is not necessary and not sufficient "for most
> This is completely false, gene duplication does not
> preserve conservatism,
You probably don't understand what I mean. Gene duplication
simply duplicates a gene to produce a particular function.
Once duplicated, the two genes need not change considerably
to produce a fairly significant change in phenotype.
You don't understand what gene duplication is, it's not simply
duplicating a gene.There are mechanisms and significant changes
that must occur in order to successfully duplicate a gene.
> gene duplication, as I have demonstratedTedd:
> numerous times, is completely irrelevant to this issue.I have also
> quoted a paper which stated that it is not necessary and insufficient.
An important point: gene duplication is *never* irrelevant to
this issue because it is the method that the majority of
evolutionists point to when explaining major evolutionary
Gene duplication is neither "...neccessary nor sufficient for most
developmental evolution".The reason is it begs the question of change
during ontogeny, which causes lethality.
If you want to dismiss the most popular explanation
for body plans, the onus is on you to explain why it is
Done. Not only did I explain this, but I quoted a scientist
who agrees with me. The fact that you snipped that quote
is proof that you are convinced and you have run out of arguments
at this point.
(Gosh, why don't all these distinguished
scientists just pay attention to Nelson Alonso, biochemist
grad student, and surely they'd see the foolishness of
their ways... yeah, right.)
Done. I have both explained in detail and quoted
a scientist that agrees with me why gene duplication
is a red herring and completely irrelevant to this issue.
Still no response from you, just more assertions.
> Let me re-cap what I think about gene duplication.Tedd:
> You cannot think of gene duplication as multiplying by two.
> In order for gene duplication to succeed, the Hox gene
> would have to change during cleavage, in order to generate a
> novel expression pattern and thus a novel Hox combination, or
> the action of the Hox protein would have to change, in order to
> generate novel consequences of the particular combination of Hox
> proteins present, or both.
This paragraph is quite difficult to make sense out of.
First, it is not true that the Hox gene would need to change
during cleavage, it would only have to be duplicated in the
genome *before* any development.
This makes no sense. Hox genes HAVE to change
during cleavage in order generate a new expression pattern.
Also, be careful, because if what you say above is true,
then gene duplication is a complete non-sequitor, since
it does not explain changes *during* ontogeny, which is
essential to evolution.
This actual duplication
event is seen in a variety of genes -- it occurs in the
germline of the parent and is later inherited by the
offspring. When the gene is expressed in the offspring,
the effects of the duplication can be seen.
This is all wrong and it's not even addressing my point , gene
duplication must occur during cleavage in order to generate a novel
expression pattern and novel compartments. It is here as well that changes
can inherited.This is basic developmental biology.
> Mutations are necessary, in order for this compartmentTedd:
> to begin to serve a different function from the compartment it
No, hox duplication for body plans may not require
excessive differences in mutation. The existence
of a whole new set of developmental control genes
may well be enough to result in additional body
axes (greatly simplified, of course).
This is completely false. Significant mutations are needed,what
do you think activates the regulatory sequences? What do
you think makes it bind to different target sequences?
> In order for the new compartment to become independent,Tedd:
> its regulatory sequences must be mutated so that it is activated
> separately. And for this compartment to
> serve a function independent of that of its neighbor, it would have to
> bind to different target sequences.
There's some steps and definitions missing here. You're
describing traditional difficulties with gene duplication
hypotheses yes, but whether or not these result in
insourmountable odds is another question entirely.
This paragraph has nothing to do with what I write above.
I wasn't outlining any traditional problems with gene duplication,
this is simply the process that is needed in order for gene duplication
to occur. I said nothing about anything being a case of "insurmountable
In fact, I wonder why you even mention these "problems".
Strange that I didn't even mention any "problems".
After all, you're insisting that "change during ontogeny"
results in lethality, so why are you even bothering to
criticize gene duplication at all? You've won the
game already from start.
Simple, I'm not critizing gene duplications. It is good
to actually read what I write instead of going on some weird
tangent again.If you don't understand what I'm saying, ASK.
There is no shame in that. I am simply outlining the process,
the problem I am pointing out is that mutations and changes
occur in order to duplicate a gene, it's not just multiply by two
and *POP* a duplicate gene magically appears, no thats nonsense.
There are actuall biological processes that must take place.
> (Of course, Nelson has ruled out "viable" right off because he
> believes that any change during development causes lethality --
> which of course means we can never make progress to discussing
> the possibility and effects of gene duplication and I must
> constantly direct the topic back to this central point of
> Actually you have been bouncing back and forth between irrelevant
> arguments is a better reason why you intermittenly bring up
> gene duplication and inherited mutations.
As usual, your paragraph makes little sense.
> You have alsoTedd:
> been evading the subject of gene duplication since I have
> shown it to be a red herring as well.
Actually, that's a subject I'd love to get into since
gene duplication may well turn out to be the key to
evolution. However, as long as you insist that
"change during ontogeny" is impossible, there's really
no point in talking about gene duplication; Gene
duplication is a change during ontogeny so it
must be impossible; End Of Story (according to Nelson).
Gene duplication is not neccessary nor sufficient.
It is a red herring, it also begs the question of change
during ontogeny.With respect to my argument, I can
make a list a mile high explaining why gene duplication
is a red herring. I stated more then enough in this post and
previous ones though.
> I wrote about 'mutation' orginally, but it looks like there's
> a more important issue: as I wrote above, why must the phylotypic
> stage change significantly if evidence shows it is alike across
> all vertebrates? Of what significance is the phylotypic
> stage in body plan evolution prior to vertebrates?
> Well as I referenced with Pendlton,Raff, et. al., ontogenetic
> stages are what determines body plans (see my quote below about
> this specifically). This is what I have been stating all along.
Which doesn't answer either question. I think you're avoiding
Actually I have answered both questions quite concisely both
with my quotes and with the quote and explanation below , so lets
see what you have to say...
> As the paper also states:Nelson:
> "All embryos must pass through a narrow developmental bottleneck called
> the "phylotypic" stage, because that is when traits typical of a
> particular phylum are determined. For example, all vertebrate embryos at a
> certain stage--about 4 weeks in humans--have the same body plan, including
> a dorsal rod of cells called a notochord and a set of paired tail muscles.
> Yet before this stage, embryos may look very different, and afterward,
> their development takes them down a variety of paths to finned, feathered,
> or footed adults."
Oh what a shame, no response, oh well.
[ On to the most interesting topic -- evidence, according to Nelson,
of the process of change during ontogeny ]
> > "Injecting doses of Mixer-ENR leads to lethality during gastrulation,Tedd:
> > presumably because of the complete failure to form the leading anterior
> > (pharyngeal) endoderm.
> > (A) Mid-tail bud, control injected embryo (stage 31) is shown
> > above two embryos derived from fertilized eggs injected in the
> > vegetal hemisphere with
> Hold on -- fertilized eggs were injected, thus this process describes
> the same one I referred to before which resulted in adult mice.
> No it has nothing to do with your experiment. Simply seeing
> the word "injected" does not make this experiment like the one
> you referenced. Note that they injected the "embryo" and
> and it was done during gastrulation. Not while it was a blastocyst,
> which is before development.
No, read the quote again. "Injected" refers to fertilized eggs.
This is clearly before any significant development.
No it refers to embryos derived from fertilized eggs, read it carefully.
This is an injection during gastrula and midgastrula stage, it
states that quite clearly.It even states where they injected it.
> > 150 pg of Mixer-ENR mRNA. Gross morphology of the embryos injectedTedd:
> > with Mixer-ENR is similar to that observed after injection of
> > a Sox17-ENR fusion (8). (B, D, and F) Transverse sections of
> > control midgastrula (stage 11) embryos for comparison to transverse
> > sections of mid-gastrula (stage 11) embryos injected at the
> > one-cell stage with 500 pg of Mixer-ENR mRNA per egg
> Hold on -- injection occurred at the one-cell stage, thus this
> process describes the same (or similar) one I referred to before
> which resulted in adult mice.
> The one-celled stage here refers to the midgastrula stage, a stage
> during development, and once again is completely unrelated to your
> experiment where they are injected before development, note the
Are you kidding? The one-celled stage is even prior to cleavage,
long before the midgastrula stage! Please support your
statement. This is critical.
Sigh. This is what I get for arguing with a non-technical type.
During the process of gastrulation, which is during development,
the embryo enters a one-celled stage, also referred to as the
blastula stage.This is where all the various organ systems of the
develop."One-celled" refers to the layer.
Just so that there will be no mistake , let me quote more, some of these
are during cleavage, some during gastrulation, all are during ontogeny:
"Cytostatic factor (CSF) induced mitotic arrest when injected into cleaving
embryos (stage 11). The underlying hypothesis was that CSF activity is
responsible for the maintenance of mature oocytes in their normal metaphase
arrest state. "
The Protein Kinase p90 Rsk as an Essential Mediator of Cytostatic Factor
Ramesh R. Bhatt and James E. Ferrell Jr.
Science 1999 286: 1362-1365.
"Stage 11 embryos were microinjected with a solution of PBS and 2 mM NaN3
containing about 6 � 108 tetramethyl rhodamine isothiocyanate (TRITC)
standard microinjection procedures."
Stefan D. Gross, Markus S. Schwab, Andrea L. Lewellyn, and James L. Maller
Science 1999 November 12; 286: 1365-1367.
"(A) Embryos (dorsal view) at stage 20 that were injected ventrally at the
four-cell stage with 40 ng per embryo of control mouse IgG or 1G9
(anti-XIP3R). The induced ectopic dorsal axis is indicated by an arrow. (B)
Embryos injected ventrally at the four-cell stage with 40 ng per embryo of
control mouse IgG or 1G9. Dorsal views of embryos at stage 37/38 are shown."
M. Logan, S. M. Pagan-Westphal, D. M. Smith, L. Paganessi, C. J. Tabin, Cell
94, 307 (1998)
> Such a part can only occur during gastrulation, which is duringTedd:
No, all injections were done at the one-cell stage according
to this paper; long before all development.
Nowhere in the quote suggests anything of the sort, you have a deep
lack of knowledge when it comes to biology which led you to state this
and you have been refuted once again.This experiment shows a mutation
during gastrulation, which is during ontogeny, which caused lethality.
your statement that the one-celled stage is anything but
the absolutely earliest stage of development.
Done. Also, let me note something, your argument is not the default
truth, you have to show or demonstrate your point, don't just say it.Even
if I couldn't prove such a thing, you still can't say it was *before*
unless you demonstrate it.As you readily admit here, your version of the
"one-celled stage" is
also *during* development.
"the one-celled stage is anything but
the absolutely earliest stage of development."
So even if I was wrong about what the one-celled stage is referring to,
you still must concede my point, that this experiment was a mutation
during a stage of development. I was going to explain that in detail at the
end of this post
but you admit it here, so my work is done.
<snip the rest for later>
- "Alonso, Nelson" writes
in message <A0713B26055ED1119685006097E47C3B0165FBF2@PCSINTX1>:
> >So what? It doesn't bother me to be laughed at. Learning
> > Nelson:
> > I have a better question. Why is it that all the time I refute you
> > you start comming out with insults without response? (hint:something
> > to do with being refuted!)
> Whats the matter Tedd, need some help? Stuck? I advise very
> strongly that you don't touch that place with a ten foot pole,
> your misquotes and lack of knowledge in any technical area
> whatsoever will be laughed out of existence.
can be a humbling process. C'mon, Nelson, let's hop
over to Evolution @ Calvin.edu, whatdayasay?
> > Nelson:You misunderstand the sentence. The embryos were derived from
> > No it refers to embryos derived from fertilized eggs, read it carefully.
> > This is an injection during gastrula and midgastrula stage, it
> > states that quite clearly. It even states where they injected it.
> "... two embryos derived from fertilized eggs
> injected in the vegetal hemisphere with ..."
> The problem, here, seems to be more of your lack of familiarity
> with biology and/or the English language. In the above sentence,
> the verb "injected" refers to the noun "eggs" rather than the
> noun "embryos" because "injected" immediately follows "eggs",
> and because "vegetal hemisphere" refers to one half of the egg.
> (The other half of the egg is called the "animal hemisphere".
> Another term for this is "vegetal pole" and "animal pole".
> See http://worms.zoology.wisc.edu/frogs/glossary.html)
> Now you are being completely silly. Let me ask you one question
> Tedd, WHERE DO YOU THINK THE EMBRYOS ARE? You actually claim that
> I do not know English or Biology and then claim that the embryos
> are seperate from the FERTILIZED egg?????
the fertilized eggs; prior to this, the fertilized eggs were injected
in the vegetal hemisphere. The eggs were injected, tlhe embryos
developed from those eggs. The quote is quite clear on that:
| "Injecting doses of Mixer-ENR leads to lethality during
| gastrulation presumably because of the complete failure
| to form the leading anteri or (pharyngeal) endoderm.
| (A) Mid-tail bud, control injected embryo (stage 31) is
| shown above two embryos derived from fertilized eggs
| injected in the vegetal hemisphere with
> Also note the the term VEGETAL is the part where the endoderm developsNo, in this case the term vegetal refers to the hemisphere of the
> which is during gastrulation.
> | " 150 pg of Mixer-ENR mRNA. Gross morphology of the embryos injectedInjected at the one-cell egg stage, yes.
> | with Mixer-ENR is similar to that observed after injection of
> | a Sox17-ENR fusion (8). (B, D, and F) Transverse sections of
> | control midgastrula (stage 11) embryos for comparison to transverse
> | sections of mid-gastrula (stage 11) embryos injected at the
> | one-cell stage with 500 pg of Mixer-ENR mRNA per egg"
> " Transverse sections of control midgastrula (stage 11)
> embryos for comparison to transverse sections of mid-gastrula (stage 11)
> embryos injected at the one-cell stage with 500 pg of Mixer-ENR mRNA per egg
> (C, E, and G). "
>You're displaying an unfamiliarity with biology as well as misreading
> Let's review basic developmental biology for Nelson:
> 1. Fertilized egg -- one-cell stage
> 2. Cleavage of egg to a hollow sphere of cells -- blastula stage
> This is completely false. The blastula stage is during gastrulation,
> as I have quoted in my previous post to Rich.
my sentence. Gastrulation occurs after the blastula stage.
But I never said anything about gastrulation. Which of these
two statements is "completely false"?
1. Fertilized egg -- one-cell stage
2. Cleavage of egg to a hollow sphere of cells -- blastula stage
(Oh, I should add the "morula" is in there somewhere between
the egg and the blastula)
3. invagination or differentiation of the blastula -- gastrula stage.
<snip the rest for now. I can't tell if Nelson is obsfuscating
or really misunderstands something... maybe when I have more time>