Intelligent Design Plants

Researchers: Plants were “remodelled” 450 mya to grow leaves

Spread the love

Background: Moss remodelling itself in Hull, Quebec

A change in the timing and location of gene activity did the trick:

The team discovered that around 450-million years ago a switch enabled plants to delay reproduction and displace new cells downwards from the shoot tips, paving the way to plant diversification. Using cutting-edge developmental and genetic techniques, the team studied the swollen reproductive structures at the tips of the small stems of mosses. These plants, which represent a starting point for plant evolution, are raised upwards by new cells generated in the middle of the stem. Despite their different patterns of growth, similar genes are responsible for elongating the stems of mosses and plants with more elaborate shoots.

Contrary to prior work, the results demonstrate a nascent mechanism for shoot development as plants first emerged on land and suggest that a change in the timing and location of gene activity triggered the radiation of shooting forms.

Dr. Jill Harrison, the study’s lead author and Senior Lecturer from Bristol’s School of Biological Sciences, explains: “By comparing our new findings from a moss with previous findings, we can see that a pre-existing genetic network was remodelled to allow shoot systems to arise in plant evolution.”

University of Bristol, “Genes that first enabled plants to grow leaves identified by scientists” at Phys.org

It looks very much like a plan rather than an accident.

See also: Researchers: Photosynthesis May Be A Billion Years Older Than Thought … But WAIT!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

10 Replies to “Researchers: Plants were “remodelled” 450 mya to grow leaves

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Cleverly funny caption News, “Moss remodelling itself in Hull’. 🙂

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this comment

    “By comparing our new findings from a moss with previous findings, we can see that a pre-existing genetic network was remodelled to allow shoot systems to arise in plant evolution.”

    Some might think that this blatant use of teleological ‘design language’ by Darwinists in the article was just a mistake on their part, but the fact of the matter is that it is impossible for Evolutionary Biologists to speak of biological systems for any length of time without illegitimately using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. goal directed purpose, i.e. without using ‘design language’.

    tel·e·ol·o·gy
    noun
    PHILOSOPHY
    the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
    THEOLOGY
    the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

    (The irresolved problem of) Teleology in biology
    Teleology in biology is the use of the language of goal-directedness in accounts of evolutionary adaptation, which some biologists and philosophers of science find problematic. ,,,
    Nevertheless, biologists still often write about evolution as if organisms had goals, and some philosophers of biology such as Francisco Ayala and biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane consider that teleological language is unavoidable in evolutionary biology.,,,
    Teleology
    Main article: Teleology
    Teleology, from Greek, telos “end, purpose”[3] and , logia, “a branch of learning”, was coined by the philosopher Christian von Wolff in 1728.[4] The concept derives from the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, where the final cause (the purpose) of a thing is its function.[5] However, Aristotle’s biology does not envisage evolution by natural selection.[6]
    Phrases used by biologists like “a function of … is to …” or “is designed for” are teleological at least in language. The presence of real or apparent teleology in explanations of natural selection is a controversial aspect of the philosophy of biology, not least for its echoes of natural theology.[1][7]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology

    Atheists hold that random chaos is the ultimate creator of all things. That is to say, atheists believe that there is no rhyme or reason, i.e. no ‘teleology’, for why the universe exists, much less do they believe that life has any rhyme, reason, or purpose for its existence. For the atheist, the answer to the question “Why does the universe and life exist?” is “The universe and life have no reason for their existence. They are both a happenstance fluke of random chaos.” And yet, although this is THE foundational presupposition within the atheist’s materialistic worldview, atheists who are scientists, none-the-less, embark on their scientific research as if there really is some kind of rhyme and reason behind the objects of their study. Why investigate a mystery in the first place if you truly do not believe there is any rhyme of reason for the mystery?,,,,

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    ,,, That is to say, the very practice of science itself by atheists defeats their very own atheistic worldview. It is simply impossible to do science, especially biological science, without presupposing purpose and/or teleology on some overarching level.

    As Talbott explains, “the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology,”

    The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

    As Talbott also noted in the preceding article, it is simply impossible for Biologists to do their research without invoking teleological design language. In other words, the very words that biologists themselves are forced to use falsifies the Darwinists atheistic worldview as being true.

    In fact, the very existence of language itself falsifies the presupposition of chaotic ‘meaninglessness’ within the atheist’s worldview.

    As Talbott further remarks in the following article, “no one has ever explained,, how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,”

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,,
    Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling… and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained.
    The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
    “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)”,,,
    And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

    And again, the problem for Darwinists is especially acute in biology. As Denis Noble notes that “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.

    “the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence.
    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
    – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.
    http://www.thebestschools.org/.....interview/

    This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s’s assessment, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”

    Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011
    Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.
    Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....nt-8858161

    Likewise, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane once observed that,,

    “Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.”
    J. B. S. Haldane

    Thus, Darwinist’s, due to their underlying atheistic/naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    And again, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of basically being a unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific religion for atheists, this impossibility for them to rid themselves of teleological language in their explanations should count as another powerful rebuke of their theory.

    Verse:

    Matthew 12:37
    For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    One final note, Michael Egnor has a very insightful article explaining exactly why Darwinists are so intent on trying to deny teleology in the first place, “It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.”

    Teleology and the Mind – Michael Egnor – August 16, 2016
    Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature.
    Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature.
    In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.
    The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others.
    Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/

  3. 3
    OLV says:

    A KNOX-Cytokinin Regulatory Module Predates the Origin of Indeterminate Vascular Plants
    Yoan Coudert, Ond?ej Novák, C. Jill Harrison
    DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.06.083
    https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30843-7?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219308437%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    a pre-existing KNOX-cytokinin regulatory module was recruited into vascular plant shoot meristems during evolution to promote indeterminacy, thereby enabling the radiation of vascular plant shoot forms.

    vascular plant KNOX-cytokinin-regulated meristem functions may have derived directly from a functional unit operating in their ancestors, predating the origin of indeterminate sporophyte growth.

    there is genetic homology between the proliferative zones of vascular plant meristems and the intercalary region of moss setae. We speculate more broadly on the evolution of land plant meristems elsewhere

    Questions:

    How did that regulatory module appear?

    How was it recruited?

    Why?

  4. 4
    PaV says:

    Here’s a paper on the KNOX-Cytokinin Regulatory Modules in plants.

    Here’s a paper by the author giving an overview of plant development.

  5. 5
    OLV says:

    PaV @4:

    Thanks for sharing that interesting information.

  6. 6
    OLV says:

    LMI1-like and KNOX1 genes coordinately regulate plant leaf development in dicotyledons
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11103-019-00829-7
    Leaf development is changeable and complicated and is regulated by many factors.
    the LMI1-like and KNOX1 genes regulate the formation of several margin structures

  7. 7
    Pearlman says:

    aligns w/ either:
    day 3 to day 8 (when rained outside the watered Eden. so vegetation breached above water outside Eden, for the first time starting day 8.
    or the early Mabul year,
    So either absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and we do not find just because of the catastrophic changes we do not find in the record prior.
    or they were not until the catastrophic Mabul events were the cause and effect that brought out those latent features, due to environmental stress and change..
    so assume uniformitarian assumptions, snooze and lose ?
    so either about 1anno mundi (6k rounded YA) or starting 1656 years later.
    reference the YeC Moshe Emes series and framework for Torah and science alignment.

  8. 8
    OLV says:

    Molecular cartography of leaf development?—?role of transcription factors
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526618300384?via%3Dihub

    Organ elaboration in plants occurs almost exclusively by an increase in cell number and size. Leaves, the planar lateral appendages of plants, are no exception. Forward and reverse genetic approaches have identified several genes whose role in leaf morphogenesis has been inferred from their primary effect on cell number and size, thereby distinguishing them as either promoters or inhibitors of cell proliferation and expansion. While such classification is useful in studying size control, a similar link between genes and shape generation is poorly understood. Computational modelling can provide a conceptual framework to re-evaluate the known genetic information and assign specific morphogenetic roles to the transcription factor-encoding genes.

    Growth in a leaf primordium occurs by an increase in cell number and cell size, which is regulated in space and time primarily through the activities of growth-promoting and growth-repressing transcription factors, sometimes themselves expressed in gradients, as a result of their transcriptional regulation and/or post-transcriptional control by the upstream regulatory microRNAs. Transcriptional output is often a modulation of cellular properties and response to hormones, which act as intercellular messengers. These molecular players lay down the blueprint for growth patterns in space and time. The challenge is to decipher the connection between proximal effects of gene activities and its ultimate manifestation on organ growth.

    whereas the link between the base-to-tip growth gradient and final leaf size has been well-studied [12,13], how the patterns of cell division and expansion generate species-specific shapes is still an enigma.

    the growth pattern is established early on during the primordium development

    Although such studies provide a roadmap for describing growth patterns, the major challenge is to understand how they are specified at the genetic level

    How GRFs stimulate proliferation directly is at present unclear.

    GRFs may promote laminar outgrowth by other indirect mechanisms.

    Computational models provide a useful prism through which a complex biological phenomenon can be viewed in order to reveal its underlying component network(s) of interacting molecules.

    On the other hand, mutant analyses provide valuable mechanistic details that may not be predicted by modelling alone.

    the determination of growth orientation may not be independent of the growth regulatory network.

    Leaf form is a complex trait that requires several genetic regulators

    Detailed spatio-temporal analysis of these genes coupled with time-lapse growth analysis of their mutants should clarify their morphogenetic role.

    Though modelling and experimental approaches together explain how diverse and complex leaf shapes can be generated, many questions still remain. Firstly, what is the evolutionary significance of this diversity. Indeed, the existence of any strong selection pressure on leaf shape in a specific environment is still debated [2]. Secondly, what is the advantage of evolving diverse growth gradients, as many species grow leaves without any gradient [11••]. It has been suggested that specific growth patterns confer adaptive advantage depending on the ecological niche of the plant species [32•]. A detailed ‘eco-evo-devo’ approach will be required to gain deeper insights.

  9. 9
    OLV says:

    How plants grow up
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jipb.12786

    control of cell division planes, boundary formation and temporal dynamics of differentiation, are likely critical mechanisms coordinating axial growth and development in plants.

  10. 10
    Axel says:

    ‘It looks very much like a plan rather than an accident. ‘

    Tickled to bits with each new contribution to the growing litany of such headlines as the above ! Hilarious stuff. I wonder if there is a figure of spech to describe such a crescendo of arch comments ?

    Well, I’ve just checked the meaning of ‘arch’ and it seems to fit the bill nicely : ‘speaking or looking as though you think it is funny that you know something that someone else does not know.’ (McMillan Dictionary)

Leave a Reply