Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Heads or Tails: The Problem of Evolving Animal Body Plans
Evolution News and Views ^ | May 15, 2015 | Ann Gauger

Posted on 05/18/2015 6:16:43 AM PDT by Heartlander

Heads or Tails: The Problem of Evolving Animal Body Plans

Ann Gauger May 15, 2015 3:17 AM | Permalink

Nearly all the animals we know have bilateral symmetry at some stage of their lives, meaning they have right and left halves that are mirror images of each other. These animals also have a head and a tail, a top and a bottom to them. The technical terms are anterior/posterior (A/P) and dorsal/ventral (D/V) axes (plural for axis, not the wood-chopping instrument). The exceptions are things like sponges, jellyfish, sea anemones, and small creatures like the Volvox I wrote about last week.

Even simple little worms like C. elegans have A/P and D/V axes, but how those axes get specified during the worm's development is far from simple. It involves something like this pathway:

Bilateral.jpeg

I have generalized the diagram to describe all signaling pathways. The specific details vary from organism to organism, from situation to situation. In C. elegans, subject of the new Discovery Institute video "How to Build a Worm," the cue is the entry of the sperm into the egg at one end. This sets off the signal -- in C. elegans's case it is the formation of an asymmetric arrangement of microtubules -- structural elements involved in cell division. The asymmetric arrangement of microtubules causes a wave of cortical contractions that redistributes a protein in the cytoplasm to the cortex. (The cortex is the area of cytoplasm just under the cell membrane, and it is rich in structural proteins that cause movement and in developmental receptor molecules.) That protein then causes changes to other proteins embedded in the cortex. The asymmetrical redistribution of these proteins is represented as the receiver in the diagram. Then an asymmetrical cell division caused by the asymmetric microtubules partitions the proteins into different cells. This division is indicated by the slash marks in the diagram.

The worm has now established its A/P axis. The partitioned proteins go on to affect downstream targets in different ways. How the target molecules are affected influences the fates of all the future cells resulting from those first two cells, including which will become dorsal, and which ventral cells. If you want more detail, you can read about it in Scott Gilbert's textbook, Developmental Biology.

The development of all bilaterally symmetric animals involves signaling networks. A signal is sent based on some cue, it is received, and some change is effected, over and over again. We see the developmental cascade that results in How to Build a Worm.

As shown there, the cascade of signaling leads to the production of multiple cell types arranged in a particular pattern that is C. elegans. The details differ from organism to organism -- when the cells divide, when the signals are sent -- but all bilaterally symmetric animals use something like the same process to set up their basic body plans and what cell types are made.

Even when the signaling pathway is stripped to its simplest, it still involves a cue to cause a signal to be sent and received. The cue is of no use unless it triggers a signal that can be received and cause downstream effects. That is what is necessary to begin to establish a difference in cell fates, and that requires a minimum of three molecules all to be present in order to work. It would take a very long time to assemble such a pathway, but would the result be of any selective advantage? Not unless there were more pathways involved that caused movement in the direction of some resource, or assigned a special function to particular cells that benefitted the whole.

These signaling pathways pre-date the animals that use them now. Based on genomic analyses, these signaling molecules have been around well before the first bilaterian animals ever existed. They are expressed in organisms that lack these body axes completely. Even more surprising, many of the molecules used to make complex structures such as muscles, eyes, and brains also predate their use for those purposes.

What were these signaling molecules used for before there was a left and right, a top and bottom, a head and tail? How did they come to be at all, and why did they persist until they could be co-opted for the establishment of body axes? It has been suggested that they were used to establish body sections in the earliest multicellular animals, but that only pushes the question back a step. Where did that use come from? How did the signaling pathways start?

With these questions, I conclude the series I began to address the white space in evolutionary thinking -- how to account for the evolution of C. elegans. First there is the problem of getting a cell, then of getting a eukaryotic cell, then of getting a multicellular animal, and now of getting one with a head and a tail and multiple cell types. Saying C. elegans didn't have to solve the problem all at once is merely to suggest that the problems are easier if taken one step at a time. They are not.



TOPICS: Education; Reference; Science; Society
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/18/2015 6:16:43 AM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

This basically a more convoluted way of stating the problem of irreducible complexity described by Michael Behe in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”


2 posted on 05/18/2015 6:38:48 AM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Purposeful, intelligent design with an end product in mind - this seems to echo the statements of King David in Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—
when I awake, I am still with you.


3 posted on 05/18/2015 7:03:56 AM PDT by Lake Living
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Here the thing.. you do not need to belive in god to see problem it the theory of evolution... but because of it leaving the door open to possibility of god.. science is afraid to the question evolution dogma...

science driven by religious dogma or anti-religious dogma is still bad science...because in both cases it really is just the political dogma of the moment driving the answers


4 posted on 05/18/2015 9:06:19 AM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Just wanted to draw your attention to an article in Science Magazine concerning the evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes focusing on archaea as being far more like eukaryotes, foreshadowing the leap single cell evolution.
5 posted on 05/18/2015 3:28:33 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

I don’t think that science is afraid of God or that nature points most decidedly to a Creator. It’s just that science and religion cover different ground. Religion includes the things of mortality and eternity. Science is limited to just those mortal things.

What we are seeing in the sciences is a culture-wide presumption that believers are not rational or don’t reason. This is wholly environmental as it is taught by Marxists in our schools. The religion of Marxism has replaced God in the general culture. Thus scientists also tend not to believe, but not because of their study of science, but because of their indoctrination in government school systems.


6 posted on 05/19/2015 6:38:45 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Oddly i would see it as the reverse.. it is a fear of god the restrictions the ideas imposes...

Which is truly odd because a rational person accept restrictions

reason dictates reason is universal, logic dictates logic is universal,...science is based on some of these premises...but say god and that God dictates God is universal they fear and hate the concept
..yet its all one in the same.

the rationale man has a god he obeys and worships called logic and reason and truth...and the truly Christian man knows God is living logic and reason and truth

God is truth truth is God...


7 posted on 05/19/2015 7:06:49 AM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
I think they've been groomed to reject God in their schooling. Then they wrap themselves in 'science' because it's rational and they can reject what they've been taught to believe about God.

Of course, they always face this problem:


8 posted on 05/19/2015 7:23:28 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson