Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Genes switching rows of teeth = Efficient ID Design?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The “Msx1, a feedback activator of Bmp4 expression” with the Osr2 control gene has been discovered to switch between single vs multiple sets of teeth. E.g. distinguishing between humans and sharks. This efficient compact control mechanism appears to fit well within an ID Design paradigm. The serious cleft pallet defects caused by errors further suggest an irreducibly complex system.

What evidence might there be for random mutation and “selection” to form such a complex yet elegant control system so “early” in evolution?

Finding genes that make teeth grow all in a row By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Thursday, February 26, 2009

Ever wonder why sharks get several rows of teeth and people only get one? . . .A single gene appears to be in charge, preventing additional tooth formation in species destined for a limited set. When the scientists bred mice that lacked that gene, the rodents developed extra teeth next to their first molars _ backups like sharks and other non-mammals grow, University of Rochester scientists reported Thursday. . . .Also intriguing: All the mice born without this gene, called Osr2, had cleft palates severe enough to kill. So better understanding of this gene might play a role in efforts to prevent that birth defect, the Rochester team reported in the journal Science.

Teeth may not be visible until long after birth, but they start to form early in embryo development. Teeth ultimately erupt from a thickened band of tissue along the jaw line called the dental lamina, a band that forms in a top layer of the gum called the epithelium.
. . . All the action takes place instead in a deeper cell layer called the mesenchyme.

Think of the Osr2 gene as a control switch, a kind of gene that turns on and off the downstream actions of other genes and proteins. In that mesenchymal tissue, the Osr2 gene works in concert with two other genes to make sure budding teeth form in the right spot, said lead researcher Dr. Rulang Jiang, a geneticist at Rochester’s Center for Oral Biology.

See: full article.

Antagonistic Actions of Msx1 and Osr2 Pattern Mammalian Teeth into a Single Row
Zunyi Zhang, Yu Lan, Yang Chai, Rulang Jiang
Science 27 February 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5918, pp. 1232 – 1234;
DOI: 10.1126/science.1167418

Mammals have single-rowed dentitions, whereas many nonmammalian vertebrates have teeth in multiple rows. Neither the molecular mechanism regulating iterative tooth initiation nor that restricting mammalian tooth development in one row is known. We found that mice lacking the transcription factor odd-skipped related-2 (Osr2) develop supernumerary teeth lingual to their molars because of expansion of the odontogenic field. Osr2 was expressed in a lingual-to-buccal gradient and restricted expression of bone morphogenetic protein 4 (Bmp4), an essential odontogenic signal, in the developing tooth mesenchyme. Expansion of odontogenic field in Osr2-deficient mice required Msx1, a feedback activator of Bmp4 expression. These findings suggest that the Bmp4-Msx1 pathway propagates mesenchymal activation for sequential tooth induction and that spatial modulation of this pathway provides a mechanism for patterning vertebrate dentition.

Comments
eintown wrote: "Again its pointless to argue over the details, as others have. My point is as I’ve reiterated so many times previously is that no amount of evidence is enough for you." Then you should demonstrate this. We all know that Behe understands the arguments, and has provided adequate responses, but we don't know if you do or if you can. Experience has apparently shown otherwise regarding your ability to engage the subject, as you consistently refuse to do so despite many requests. "If 1 changed to 2 and then to 3, you guys what 1.5 and 2.5. If they are found then you want 1.25 and 1.75 and 2.25 and 2.75. You get the picture." If evaluating 1.5 and 2.5 are necessary to understand the probability of arriving at 3 from 1, then a refusal to evaluate them is intellectually dishonest. "Demski himself admitted this. But hey, claim that this link is full of lies:" I don't need to, he didn't admit that no evidence would convince him of evolution. That is the interpretation of his comments by an ideologically motivated critic. It seems to me from the link ERV gave, the more thoughtful students realized that making a few glib comments failed to address the substance of Dembski's arguments. Furthermore, if this was really the "point" that you have "reiterated so many times," then it appears all your point amounts to is a tired old ad hominem.Lord Timothy
March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Again its pointless to argue over the details, as others have. My point is as I've reiterated so many times previously is that no amount of evidence is enough for you. If 1 changed to 2 and then to 3, you guys what 1.5 and 2.5. If they are found then you want 1.25 and 1.75 and 2.25 and 2.75. You get the picture. Demski himself admitted this. But hey, claim that this link is full of lies: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/09/irreducible-complexity-reflects-human.htmleintown
March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
eintown Sad to see you have such an "open" mind. Apparently: 1) You have not read either of Behe's books. 2) You have not understood Behe's findings on the probability of 10^20 for two joint mutations based on the best hard scientific facts. 3) You don't understand the time/space probability demands of randomly searching through DNA space for the hundreds of necessary mutations. You cannot "rehash" what you have not read and do not grasp. Is your mind so placid that facts cannot impact you?DLH
March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Yip, I love "just so" stories and "hand waving". I am blinded by: 1. The oiled materialistic machine of modern science. 2. Power and money hungry scientists, who only want to push their agendas. Its kind of sad that both Demski's and Behe's arguements have been deconstructed quite throughly. PLEASE DONT ASK ME TO REHASH THEM - ITS POINTLESS. My point IS that no level of evidence and no amount of detail will satisfy you.eintown
March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
George L Farquhar at 3. On "selection", it sounds plausible, until you apply realistic mutation rates. See: Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.(3rd ed) # 248 pages, Feed My Sheep Foundation, Inc. (March 1, 2008)ISBN-10: 0981631606 Sanford cites the population models developed by ardent evolutionists to show that "natural mutation" overwhelms any "selection", resulting in steadily degrading genomes. Look forward to your careful read of Sanford.DLH
March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Thanks platonist. Been buried in patent land etc. eitown re IC "However there is no evidence for this and the amount of data published to show the evolution of these systems is overwhelming - What Behe said cannot happen." You seem to exhibit little to no conception of engineering, design, controls, or probability. A few hand waving arguments appear to satisfy you. Please answer UpRight Biped's query on what you have read of Behe. Have you read "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism"? What grounds do you have to stand on to begin with? Evolutionists make the quantum jump of abiogenesis to a self reproducing living cell with full energy processing, information processing and material processing. See Yockey on abiogenesis:
It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. (Yockey, 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8).
Then evolutionists assume that because such amazing replication with error correction, energy conversion mechanisms, and material processing mechanisms exist, that any small change from mutations etc. is "proof" of evolution etc. What evidence can you show to dispute Behe's hypothesis of the practical limit of two mutations? e.g. parts per 10^20. See Behe's rebuttals to objections in Behe's blog. at Amazon.com e.g. Waiting Longer for Two Mutations If you can't even get a reasonably probable occurrence of two necessary mutations, where is the faintest hope of de novo obtaining any sequence of the DNA to synthesize complex proteins for complex functions? On Doolitle, See Behe's blog addressing another of Doolitle's papers: Miller vs. Luskin, Part 2 January 15, 2009
as far as the argument for intelligent design is concerned the only relevant part of Doolittle's paper is Figure 10, which purports to show the clotting pathway in lamprey vs. other vertebrates. (Intelligent design is wholly compatible with common descent — including descent by gene duplication/rearrangement. Rather, ID argues against the Darwinian claim that complex, functional molecular systems could be built by a random, unguided process.) Yet to get from one arrangement to the other one would take multiple steps, not just one: whole genome duplication, retargeting of Factor IX, retargeting of Factor VIII, and so on.
On design and control, consider how to explain from the four random forces of nature any of the following: 1) Storing specified information. 2) Copying specified information. 3) Recognizing specified information. 4) Creating a control system including: 4.1) Sensing a parameter 4.2) Transmiting that parameter to a comparator 4.3) Comparing the control parameter against a reference. 4.3) Forming a control signal. 4.4) Amplifying the control signal. 4.5) Controlling the system. etc. From life experience and practice, we recognize all of these coming from intelligent agents. (E.g. the processes by which you can read this.) The example of control of single or multiple sets of teeth is a very elegant compact method of storing design information. I see no rational basis for arguing for such from the four laws of nature and stochastic processes. The apparent "Evidence" and "arguments" you presented appear to presume materialism is true that no intelligent causation can be tolerated, and therefore you assume the argument is made QED. Pretty weak n'cest pas? In effect, an astronomically remote probability beyond all rational understanding. Why should I not consider your, holding to abiogenesis and evolution to be based on an a priori rejection of any intelligent causation and consequent necessary embracing of materialism? May I encourage you to carefully review your assumptions and show where any of the steps from abiogenesis to control of multiple rows of teeth is justifiable based on the presumption of materialism and stochastic processes based on the four laws of nature. Per Behe, try to take and explain ANY step in this sequence requiring two mutations. Then consider the thousands of such steps needed to reach the multiple teeth control mechanism mentioned above. Then consider the joint probability of achieving biological feedback control in complex macro organisms with complex body parts where the control systems are dispersed across multiple organs requiring communication via blood flows, nerves etc. See "Exercise your wonder" by Dr. G. I think you will find such evolutionary explanations to be variations on Kipling's Just So Stories with no relation to common understanding of information, software, control, energy conversion etc. Happy hunting for reality and truth. PS. Darwin did not publish his work in journals.DLH
March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
eintown wrote: "Amazing what 3 seconds of google can do. There are many more papers - all published in journals." That's very nice, but you see they all make the same principle arguments which have been addressed by Behe elsewhere. It would be pointless to repeat oneself over and over if the principle points are the same, if someone is familiar enough with biology and the fundamental tenets of the argument, then one can see by the responses that all these same points have been addressed. Until a fundamentally new argument arises, rehashes of the same point are meaningless in the context of the broader discussion. I am sure Behe is familiar with all this literature as well, but if you think there is an argument within, then by all means, demonstrate it here.Lord Timothy
March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Gee eintown, at first I thought you were just being short-sighted, but then you make a couple of posts that seems to inedicate a deeper issue. Perhaps, I am mistaken. Please tell us what you thought of the details in the literature you posted. I know it make take more than the "three seconds" of googling that it took you to post them, but perhaps becoming aquainted with the evidence would be worth it to you.Upright BiPed
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
eintown, First, most of the people here are not creationists. So that is a bad start. Please lay out the evidence against Behe. The main argument I have ever seen is speculative co-option or exaptation. That mainly there is speculation that an appropriate part may be available and once this claim is made, it is asserted that this is how it happened. That is not science or evidence but wishful thinking. Even if all the parts were part of the genome of the bacteria it begs the question of how they all got assembled. Again wishful speculation is interesting but it is not science except for hypothesis generation.jerry
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Yes, thats true, creationists have lives, while scientists don't, so I should summarize points for you. LOL.eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
@eintown This is a blog. Most of those commenting here have day jobs, mortgages and unattended mistresses to take care of. With this in mind, don't dump a thousand dissertations on the heads of ID proponents - expressing arguments that most here are already familiar with - and then laugh maniacally. If IC is so obviously invalid, then it should be simple to state in a clear paragraph why this is so. Start off like this: "IC is invalid because of x, y, z." Then the commenters of this blog can respond to your specific criticisms. You don't need to go into massive detail. Just a simple outline of your discontent devoid of links to TalkReason, TalkOrigins or any other talk-oriented page. In the same way that Darwinists grow weary of discussing thermodynamics, so to do design propopents sigh deeply when confronted with misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Behe's theory.NSM
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Take a look at a fellow creationists post [10] "There is a record of the evolutionary history of the flagellum? I’m curious as to what you are saying here" So I will say it again: if there is evidence against IC, then its just bad science. So in essence you cant be wrong, and so, thats not science, and so ID is not science.eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
1. Not aware of? Gimme a break, the argument has been raging for at least 14 years. And, have you actually read Behe’s response to his critics? Have you read Black Box or EOE? If I build an IC system using valves, gears, belts, etc from existing systems - does the fact that some of the parts existed prior to being assembled mean that the assembly is not IC? Should it also be ignored that some of the parts where manufactured from scratch? The response to IC has been a joke - and an obvious one at that. It so poor in fact, that it can easily be seen as nothing more than a pacifier popped into the mouths of the faithful in order to say that the challenge has been met and that an answer has been put in its place. IC has not been answered. Sorry.Upright BiPed
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
So if there is evidence against IC, then its just bad science. So in essence you cant be wrong, and so, thats not science, and so ID is not sciece.eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
No dear sir, do not make sweeping statements to dismiss the science. I have given you ample resources to begin laying the case out for yourself. Lets just sum this up: -I say IC has to be proven, and all evidence points to invalidity. -You say, no, thats not true, show us! -I reference some sources. -I'm told I am blinded by authorities and its really just bad journal editors allowing 'just so' stories in. Yes, resort to the ever powerful claim of conspiracy theory rather than science, when, well, talking about scienceeintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
"counter evidence to Behe." I have never seen any. What we have seen is wishful speculation or just so stories or trivial complaints. Evolutionary biology is the only science where one's imagination is considered evidence. So the fact that they are published in journals is really evidence for the IC position. The lack of something is usually considered tacit admission of the opposite. It is more revealing about the editors of these journals then about the science itself. If you disagree, then I suggest you lay out the case for us.jerry
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
I am on this site right? But your retort is far better suited to your situation, as you were ignorant of counter evidence to Behe. And I assure you I am far more curious then most here.eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Eintown is safely in his coccoon, no need to question the authorities. Why be curious? Why read what the opposition has to say?Upright BiPed
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Uncovering the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. New Scientist, 2643. W. Ford Doolittle and Olga Zhaxybayeva (2007). “Reducible Complexity - The Case for Bacterial Flagella.” Current Biology, 17(13), R510-R512. July 3, 2007. Asai, D. J.; Koonce, M. F. (2001). "The dynein heavy chain: structure, mechanics and evolution". Trends in Cell Biology 11 (5): 196–202 Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. PNAS April 24, 2007 vol. 104 no. 17 7116-7121 Amazing what 3 seconds of google can do. There are many more papers - all published in journals.eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
the amount of data published to show the evolution of these systems is overwhelming
There is a record of the evolutionary history of the flagellum? I'm curious as to what you are saying hereuoflcard
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
The never ending attack is because creationists never stop positing it.eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
By literature do you mean that which is posted here or scientific journals? And that does not counter my objection to the teeth.eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Eintown, You might want to consider re-reading the literature. Behe has not been answered. The never-ending attack on the concept of IC should be a clue.Upright BiPed
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Thats not what I meant. I mean, to say something is irreducibly complex is not the same as showing empirically that the system is indeed IC. E.g. Behe: Immune system and flagelum are examples of IC. However there is no evidence for this and the amount of data published to show the evolution of these systems is overwhelming - What Behe said cannot happen. So, yes the teeth may be examples of IC. But then show it is!eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
eintown, do you fail to see the insight demonstrated by creating such a mechanism of control? Beyond its irreducibly complex nature, this is pretty clear evidence of FLE. But I'll bite, why isn't irreducible complexity evidence for ID?Lord Timothy
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
To say that the system is irreducibly complex is not enough to say this is evidence for ID. Remember the flagelum or the immune system?eintown
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
DLH
What evidence might there be for random mutation and “selection” to form such a complex yet elegant control system so “early” in evolution?
As living systems, no matter how comparativly simple, are very complex entities does this sort of question even make sense? If there is a complex control system then the thing it is controlling must also be complex. Or why else have a complex control system? And why is "selection" in scare quotes? Don't you believe in "selection"? At it's simplest the enviroment selects the winners and losers, and the winners win reproduction. So why is "selection" in quotes?George L Farquhar
March 8, 2009
March
03
Mar
8
08
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
This efficient compact control mechanism appears to fit well within an ID Design paradigm. Would an inefficient and uncompact control mechanism fit any less well?Hoki
March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
DLH, were have you been? Welcome back.Platonist
March 7, 2009
March
03
Mar
7
07
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply