Posted on 04/07/2006 4:16:49 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
There is a category of theories in quantum mechanics called 'hidden variable theories'. They exist, mostly, because some people dislike the 'metaphysics' of the conventional Copenhagen interpretation. And indeed, one of them might turn out to be valid, but the variables are really, really hidden.
I thought that his chosen name was dyslexic...
YHAOS--> YAHOS --> YAHOOS ?
No, it doesn't. What about charge?
Then how is it that such a massive amount of Information is contained in those spirals.
Not that much. Probably comparable to the US tax code.
Well, tie your bonnet down tight, Prof, and lean real hard into the wind.
Feathers originially developed as an insulator. Any stage from scale to feather is a marginally better insulator than the previous one, giving the critter a leg up in the survival game.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/B/20026658.html
October 2002
From University of Southern California
USC scientists uncover secrets of feather formation
'Jurassic Chicken' project may help studies of human development and evolution of dinosaurs
Los Angeles, Oct. 30, 2002 - Scientists from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California have, for the first time, shown experimentally the steps in the origin and development of feathers, using the techniques of molecular biology. Their findings will have implications for the study of the morphogenesis of various epithelial organs-from hairs to lung tissue to mammary glands-and is already shedding light on the controversy over the evolution of dinosaur scales into avian feathers.
A paper describing this work, "The Morphogenesis of Feathers", authored by principal investigator and Keck School pathology professor Cheng-Ming Chuong and his colleagues, was selected for advance online publication in the journal Nature and will be available as of October 30, 2002.
"The feather is one of the best research models you can find for understanding the basic molecular pathways used by all epithelial cells," says Chuong. "Scientists agree that whether you're looking at a human mammary gland or a chicken feather, epithelial cells use the same underlying logic, the same grammar, to form an organ. But unlike a gland, a feather really lays everything right out there for you."
The question of what makes a feather a feather has become rather heated in the recent past, with the discovery in China in the 1990s of fossilized dinosaurs like the Sinorthosaurus (Chinese-bird-dinosaur), with branching skin appendages on its skin. "Some say these things are feathers, some say they're protofeathers, others say they're not feathers at all," Chuong explains. "Everybody wants to know which one is the real first feather."
And they want to know how it came to be, as well. Over the years, Chuong notes, paleontologists trying to trace the evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and birds have looked at the ways in which a reptilian scale might turn into an avian feather.
Most adult feathers have a backbone, or stem, called a rachis, off of which the feather's barbs branch; each individual barb then branches again into the feather's smallest unit, the barbule, which is made of a single row of epithelial cells. Downy feathers, like those on a chick, lack a rachis altogether and are made up of just barbs studded with barbules. The standing hypothesis among many paleontologists has long been that the scales on dinosaurs must have lengthened into rachides that then became notched to form barbs and barbules. But there has been no real molecular evidence to either back up or refute that argument. Until now.
In their Nature paper, Chuong and his colleagues have demonstrated just how barbs and rachides are formed in a modern chicken, and have at the same time demonstrated that the evolution from scale to feather most likely followed a path in which the barbs form first and fuse to form a rachis-rather than a rachis forming first, and then being sculpted into barbs and barbules. This interaction between evolutionary biology and developmental biology (dubbed Evo-Devo) is a relatively new marriage of two previously disparate fields.
To come to their conclusions, Mingke Yu, the postdoctoral fellow and first author on the paper, along with colleagues Ping Wu and Randall B. Widelitz in Chuong's laboratory, developed a novel way to genetically manipulate different genes during feather formation. They plucked feathers from chickens, then prompted the chicken to regenerate those feathers under controlled conditions, raising and lowering the expression levels of the genes in question on an individual basis and observing the effects they had on the organization of epithelial cells into different feather forms.
Among others, three genes in particular-noggin, bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and the whimsically named sonic hedgehog (Shh)-were found to result in new feathers that were rife with abnormal organization in their rachides and barbs. When Chuong's team increased the expression of noggin, for instance, they found that the rachis began to split into several small, thin rachides, and the barbs increased in number. When they increased the expression of BMP4, with which noggin interacts antagonistically, they found that the feather's rachis became gigantic and its barbs merged and were reduced in numbers. In this way, they were able to essentially manipulate the number and size of the feather's barbs and rachides.
Finally, when they suppressed Shh, they found a residual webby membrane between the normally separated barbs. "The cells there were supposed to go through apoptosis, or cell death," says Chuong, "in order to create the space between the barbs. But when we took away the sonic hedgehog signal, cell death no longer occurred. It is a similar process to that which occurs in the web of duck feet."
What can these new findings on the morphogenesis of feathers tell us about their evolution? "These results suggest that the barbs form first and later fuse to form a rachis, much like downy feathers are formed before flight feathers when a chicken grows up. Under the general rule of ontogeny repeating phylogeny, downy feather made only of barbs probably appeared before the evolution of feathers with rachides and capable of flight," Chuong says. "However, pinning down the exact moment at which dinosaur scales become chicken feathers is non-realistic. Just like Rome, feathers are not made in one process. It took 50 million years for Nature to refine the process, to transform a scale into a flight machine. There were many, many intermediate stages.
"While Darwin's theory has explained the 'why' of evolution, much of the 'how' remains to be learned," Chuong adds. "Evo-Devo research promises a new level of understanding."
These findings also have medical applications, notes Chuong. "With this study, we learned more about how nature guides epithelial stem cells to form different organs. For example, BMP, Shh and noggin are also used in different ways in making lungs, limbs and spinal cords. By analyzing these models, scientists may be able to fully understand nature's 'grammar,' and learn to use it in repairing or regenerating tissues and organs, which we call tissue engineering."
This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and from the National Science Foundation.
Mingke Yu, Ping Wu, Randall B. Widelitz and Cheng-Ming Chuong, _The Morphogenesis of Feathers._ Nature advance online publication, 30 October 2002 (doi:10.1038/nature01196).
I see..... you saw the movie?...
Haeckel is sneaking back in through the backdoor of molecular biology.
But don't tell anyone. It's top secret.
Actually its even more improbable(according to the story) in that scales turned into not only SKIN but SKIN with FEATHERS ..
You should send the authors an email explaining their errors.
Bleating from Crevo Moonbat?, I'm sure they will be impressed..
Lay off the dumerol.. it can give you a hangover..
Oh I agree with you there, King Prout. Also, I really don't see Romanticism as a mode of thinking, but rather more as an "attitude," and a quite atmospheric one at that. The potential "defect" of rationalism is that it still "works," even if we're not considering anything external to ourselves. (The German Transcendental Idealist philosopher Hegel definitely showed us that this is possible, with his "dialectical science.") Empiricism at least forces us to engage the world "outside" of us.
But you're right to say that its results are only "provisionally correct." The hard fact seems to be that there is no way we can know anything with absolute certainty in this world. Except (oddly enough) the existence of God. But that knowledge is granted by the Spirit; it comes to us as a free gift, not as the result of empirical investigation.
Perhaps you think that last statement is pretty silly. Well, to a certain type of mind, Christians are pretty silly. Some would even say "dangerous."
But that would be a sort of "Romantic" attitude.... "if it feels right, then it must be right."
King, I don't know whether you celebrate Easter or Passover. But if you do, have a marvelous Easter/Passover!
Thank you so much for writing.
as an example, which of the following illustrations represents a highly entropic system, and which represents a highly organized system?
depending on the answers this test generates, I may post some musings on the topic of the mechanics of how an extremely dense and energetic and highly disorganized system *could* (and perhaps inevitably MUST) self-organize through the effects of "randomly" generated interference patterns.
File this under a lurker who is trying to make sense of it all on Darwin's theory and ID's counter arguments...Re: Behe's example of the eye as proof that there could not be evolution.
Why did Michael Behe pick the EYE, of all things, to be one of his centerpiece arguments that one cannot evolve such a structure?
It occurs to me that the eye cannot be fossilized. In fact, it's one of the first things to decay in a dead carcass. Therefore, Behe makes a classic sophist argument that an entity/supranatural force/deity that cannot be proven to exist or be non-existant (using classic rhetorical rules of debate) created a thing that exists. Yet Behe asserts the created thing that exists cannot have evolutionary steps because as Behe says the proof doesn't exist, mainly because Behe knows full well it can't exist. Thus his conclusionary argument is the same argument many evolutionist maintain: A creator/first cause/deity/supranatural force does not exist.
It's a classic circle jerk in argumentation.
Thanks very much.
I'd love to see that, King Prout! Please do feel free to share your thoughts.
stipulated:
closed system, comprising a high-density of highly energetic and extremely small particles.
stipulated:
the initial location of each particle is entirely random, unrelated to the position of any other particle or any other conceivable consideration. In the aggregate, in a system described above, this renders the density of particulate distribution essentially uniform throughout.
stipulated:
there is a finite range or spectra of possible radiant emissions the particles can make; and each radiant particle has a fixed signature
stipulated:
the particles are small enough to be affected by intersecting radiant emissions as well as by bumping into each other.
because the spectrum of emissions is finite, there will be particles with identical emission signatures scattered randomly through the system, and their emissions will eventually intersect one another.
sooner or later (and in a high density closed system, sooner rather than later) the emissions themselves will intersect one another, producing harmonics and null-sets. These will in turn organize (ie: create pockets of higher concentration/density and pockets of lower concentration/density) the particles.
the system will no longer be uniform in distribution - it will be organized - all directly from the compounded effects of initially random elements.
hrmn...
I note that you did not venture to answer the question I put forth above: which illustration represents highly organized system, and which represents a highly entropic system?
given what I just posted, if you couldn't provide the correct answer before, you certainly should be able to now.
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.